Press Council of India Index of Adjudications...

Press Council of India

Index of Adjudications rendered by the Council in its meeting held on 9.9.2016

Complaints by the Press Section 13

Inquiry Committee meeting held on June 7-9, 2016

1. Complaint of Thakur Tabbu, Editor, Insaf Ki Batten, Behraich against Shri Abhay, D.M. Behraich, U.P. (13/189/14-15)

2. Complaint of Shri S. Navamani, Convenor, Federation of All News and Media Personnel Association, Tiruvarur (Tamil Nadu) against Police Personnel regarding attack on a reporter of Dinamalar (Chennai Edition), Tamil Nadu. (13/62/14-15)

3. Suo motu cognizance with regard to attack on a lady journalist at Osmania

University by the Police (13/171/15-16) 4. Complaint of Shri C.S. Kalra, Editor/Publisher, University Today against the Chief

Post Master General, Delhi Circle. (13/36/10-11)

5. Complaint of Shri Illiyaskhan , Editor, Barasta Toofan, Badnapur Distt. Jalna, Maharashtra against Police Authorities and Government of Maharashtra. (13/35/12-13)

6. Complaint of Shri Sudhir Kumar Madeshiya, Behraich, U.P. against Shri Goakhnath Saroj, SHO, Motipur and Shri Diwakar Tripurari, Circle Officer, Nanpara, U.P. ((13/83/11-12).

7. Complaint of Shri Ashwaq Ulla Khan, Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, Jalaun, U.P. against Shri Arun Dikshit, Area Officer, Konch, Jalaun, U.P. (13/11/11-12)

8. Complaint of Shri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, Correspondent, Daily News Activist, District Behraich against Shri Khalid Naseen, SHO, Matipur and Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Zonal Officer, Nanpara.(13/110/11-12)

9. Complaint of Shri Manoj Kumar, Journalist, Navkarmyug Prakashan, Banda (U.P.) against Shri Ranvir Singh, Station In-charge, Banda (U.P.) (13/195/14-15)

10. Complaint of Shri Mahpal Singh, Journalist, UNI, Amroha against Police Authorities (13/147/15-16)

11. Complaint of Shri Rajesh Itoriya, Bureau Chief, Raj Express, Sagar against Shri Sachin Atulkar, S.P. Sagar, Shri Gautam SolankiCSP, Sagar and Shri Arun Soni, T.I. (13/43/15-16)

12. Complaint of Shri Kamalkant Upmanyu, State Vice-President U.P. Journalist

Association and President, Brij Press Club, Mathura against attack on Amar Ujala Office, Agra. (13/139/15-16)

13. Communication from Shri Prakash Dubey, Member, PCI with regard to

intimidation and threats to Shri Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor of The Wire by student members of ABVP in Allahabad University. (13/193/15-16)

13 (A). Complaint of Shri Ashok Kumar Raina, Editor/Publisher, “The Northern Times”, Jammu against Information Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu. (13/145/1516).

Inquiry Committee meeting held on 11-13, July, 2016 at New Delhi

14. Complaint of Shri Manish Tripathi, Editor/Printer/Publisher/Owner, Janam Prasaram Times, Lucknow against Shri Janendra Singh, O.S.D. to Chief Minister, Government of U.P. (13/132/15-16)

15. Complaint of Shri Pradeep Verma, Journalist Tarun Mitra, Shri Santsoh Kumar

Dixit, Journalist, Amar Ujala, Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Journalist Dainik Jagran and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Journalist, Rashtriya Sahara, Jaunpur against Police Authorities, Jaunpur, U.P.(13/33/15-16)

16 Complaint of Shri Ramcharan Mali Chief Editor, Vanvasi Express, Banda, Rajasthan

against Police Authorities. (13/95/15-16)

17. Complaint of Shri Krishna Prasad, Editor-in-Chief, Outlook, New Delhi against anti-social elements. (13/68/15-16)

18. Complaint of Shri Sharad Katiyar, Publisher/Editor, Youth India, Farukhabad(U.P.)

against Police Authorities, Government of U.P. (13/179/15-16) 19. Suo-motu action regarding attack on journalists in Patiala House Court premises.

(13/204/15-16) 20. Complaint of Shri Shajeb Khan, Journalist/President, Gramin Patrakar Association,

Badaun against Shri Nooruddin, Chairman, Municipal Council, Badayun & Government of U.P. (13/102/15-16)

21. Complaint of Shri Awadesh Kumar Singh, Publisher and Printer, Fast News

Activist, Mau (U.P.) against District Magistrate, Mau, U.P. (13/126/15-16 22. Complaint of Shri K.D. Chandola, Member, PCI and National President,

Association of Small and Medium Newspaper against District Information Officer, Kanpur. (13/39/15-16)

23. Complaint of Shri K.D. Chandola, Member, PCI against Government of

U.P.(13/35/15-16) 24. Complaint of Shri Sayed Mohd. Taj Alam, Editor, Jail Diary, Lucknow, U.P. against

Information & Public Relations Department, Government of U.P.(13/122/15-16) 25. Complaint of Shri Awnideep Shukla, Social Worker, Journalist, Behraich against

District School Inspector, Behraich, U.P. (13/142/15-16) 26. Complaint of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Editor, Vashisht Times, Chhattisgarh against

Government of Chhattisgarh. (13/108/15-16)

27. Complaint of Shri Sharad Khare, Editor, Dainik Hind Gazette, Siwani, M.P. against Police Authorities, Government of M.P. (13/186/15-16)

28. Complaint of President, UP Press Club, Balrampur against Government of UP

(13/209/15-16) 29. Suo-motu cognizance with regard to murer of Shri Mithlesh Pandey, Reporter,

Dainik Jagran. (13/146/15-16) 30. Suo motu cognizance w.r.t. restriction on Media in the Hyderabad Central

University. (13/1/16-17) Inquiry Committee meeting held on 8-10 August, 2016 at New Delhi 31. Suo-motu cognizance with regard to sedition case against Tamil Weekly Namadhu Manasatchi, Puducherry. (13/174/15-16) 32. Complaint of Shri V. Murali,, Editor, Sakshi, Hyderabad against Telugu Desam

Party (13/176/15-16) 33. Complaint of Shri P. Sentamizhselven, President, Puducherry & Tamilnadu Press

& Media Association, Puducherry against Shri S. Saravanan of Latchiya Tamilan Magazine and the police authorities. (13/106/15-16)

34. Complaint of Shri K.M. Babu, Chief Editor, Samarpan Bhoomi, Korba, Chhattisgarh

against Police Authorities. (13/230/15-16) 35. Complaint of Shri Shailendra Mishra, Reporter, Dainik Raj Express, Bhind, Madhya

Pradesh against Collector, Bhind (13/10/16-17)

36. Complaint of Shri Mahavir Jain, Journalist, Jodhpur against Police Commissioner, Jodhur and RNI. (13/127/15-16)

37. Complaint of Shri Keshavdutt Chandola, National President, Association of Small

and Medium Newspapers of India against Public Relations Department, Northern Railway. (13/199/14-15)

38. Complaint of Shri Sanjay Raikwar, Chief Editor, Sagar Ke Moti, District Sidhi, M.P.

against Public Relation Office, Madhya Pradesh. (13/195/15-16)


Sl. No. 1 F.No.13/189/14-15-PCI Thakur Tabbu, Editor, Insaf Ki Batein, Bahraich

Shri Abhay, District Magistrate, Bahraich

Adjudication Dated _9.9.2016

This complaint dated 2.3.2015 was filed by Thakur Tabbu, the editor, Insaf Ki Batein, Bahraich against Shri Abhay, District Magistrate, Bahraich for threatening to implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical news items captioned “नये िजल�धकार� क� कायर् शलल से अ�धकां् जनता मे सपा के प�त नाराजगल” in his newspaper on 17.2.2015. In the aforesaid news item, he had critically analysed the working of the D.M. In his complaint, he quoted Council’s earlier decision dated 26.3.2001 in similar case filed by the him in which the Council directed the State Police authorities to ensure the security of the complainant and the safety of his life. No Written Statement A Report was called for from the respondent, Government of U.P vide letter dated 9.6.2015 followed by Reminders but no statement in reply was filed. Report of the Inquiry Committee:

Following an adjournment dated 11.4.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. The Inquiry Committee notes that despite service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear. A communication dated 2.6.2016 has been received from the complainant in which he has, inter-alia, stated that he doesn’t want any action against the District Magistrate, Shri Abhay.

The Inquiry Committee, while taking note of the aforesaid communication, declines to proceed any further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dismiss the complaint.


Sl. No. 2 F.No.13/62/14-15-PCI Shri S. Navamani, Convenor, Federation of All News and Media Personal Association, Thiruvarur District, Tamil Nadu.

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

2. The Secretary, Home(Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

3. The Director General of Police,

Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent of Police,

Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu

5. The Station House Officer, Peralam Police Station, District Tiruvarur, (Tamil Nadu)

Adjudication Dated 9.9.2016

Mr. S. Navamani, Convenor, Federation of All News and Media Personnel Association, Elavangarkudi filed their complaint against Police Authorities. In his complaint he alleged that on 21.6.2014 Mr. N. Arulselvam, Reporter of Dinamalar went to collect news in Seshapureeswarar Temple festival with his colleagues where he was assaulted by the police on duty. The policeman abused and manhandled the reporter. He further alleged that another policeman held the neck of Mr. Arulselvam and a group of police personnel including D. Saminathan, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Nannilam Sub-division, Senthil Kumar attacked him in discriminatory. After the attack, the press fraternity took Mr. Arulselvam to the Primary Health enter at Peralaman then to the Thiruvarur Medical College hospital in a car where he was treated in patient for a week. On the day of attack itself, the reporters met S. Kaliraj Mahesh Kumar, the Superintendent of Police to enquire the case. The five reporters who were witness to the attack on the reporter Mr. Arulselvam have deposed before the ADSP. They also submitted the visuals of the incident.

A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to respondents on 21.1.2015.

Comments of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur

In response to Council’s Notice for Statement in Reply, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District vide his written statement dated 12.2.2015 informed that the Additional Superintendent of Police PEW, Tiruvarur made an enquiry in connection with the problems arose between police and press persons at Thiruppampuram temple in Peralam Police Station limits. According to him, the report reveals that the police personnel behaved in an irresponsible way while dealing with the situation. He stated that the three police personnel namely S/Shri Senthil Kumar, Inspector, Raja, SSI and Dharmarajan, SSI was transferred out from this district and departmental action has been initiated. The report further reveals that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nannilam Sub-Division D. Swaminathan also behaved in an irresponsible way and left the spot without attending the work leading to aggravating the situation. In this connection the DGP, Thanjavur Range had been requested for taking action against the then Deputy Superintendent of Police Nannilam. He further submitted that in order to avoid such embarrassing situation in future a meeting with police and press persons was convened in Tiruvarur District and a circular had also been issued to all Inspectors and SDO’s for proper liaison with press persons. Counter Comments In his counter comments dated 19.3.2015 the complainant while expressing his dissatisfaction, alleged that no case was registered against the erring officials who assaulted Shri M. Arulselvam, Reporter of Dinamalar. The aggrieved reporter married a physically challenged girl and had a female child through her. The torment and mental agony caused by the brutal assault of the police persist till date on his family and the government must render proper and necessary medical attention to them. Reply from Respondent No. 4

The Deputy Superintendent of Police on behalf of the respondent no. 4 i.e the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur submitted a letter dated 15.2.2016 wherein it was stated that the Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Thiruvarur made an enquiry in connection with the problems arose between Police and Press persons at Tiruppampuran temple in Peralam Police Station limits. He further stated that based on the aforesaid report, the police personnel namely 1) Tr. Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, 2) Tr. Raja SSI of Police, 3) Tr. Dharamarajan, SSI of Police had been transferred out from this district and departmental action had been initiated against these three personnel which is under progress and yet to be concluded. He also stated that in respect of the incident the Superintendent of Polie, Thiruvarur District issued a circular memorandum for proper liaison between police and press.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police on behalf of the respondent no. 4 i.e the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur vide his another letter dated 12.4.2016 while reiterating the contents of his reply dated 15.2.2016 prayed the Council to stop the further proceedings and pass such a suitable orders and render justice.

Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following two adjournments dated 15.2.2016 and 12.4.2016, the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Navamani, the complainant appeared in person. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Advocate and Additional Advocate General of State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Venkataramni, Sr. Advocate and Additional Advocate General, Mr. M. Yogesh Khanna, Advocate, Mr. T.P. Gunasekaran,

Seputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruwarur and Ms. Arachelui, Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Tamil Nadu appeared on behalf of the respondents.

The Inquiry Committee noted that written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondent stated that appropriate action against the officials founds responsible shall be taken within six weeks from today. The respondent Counsel further assured that any expenditure incurred by the concerned journalist on his treatment shall be met by the State Government and shall be paid, if he produces the vouchers for that.

In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.


Sl. No. 3 F.No.13/171/15-16-PCI

Suo-motu cognizance with regard to attack on a lady journalist at Osmania University by the police


The Council took suo-motu cognizance in the matter of an attack on a lady journalist, Ms. Nikhila Henary of The Hindu at Osmania University campus by the police officials on 10.12.2015 during coverage of the ‘beef festival’ planned by some student groups. Accordingly, a Report of the case on facts was called for from the State Government of Telanagana vide Council’s letter dated 23.12.2015.

Report from ACP, Kachiguda Divn. Hyderabad

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kachiguda Divn, Hyderabad submitted the detailed report on 13.2.2016 with regard to the attack on a lady journalist at Osmania University by the Police. In the report, it is stated that as per the evidence collected through enquiry it is established that the Hindu reporter gained entry into the campus of Osmania University dated 10.12.2015 at 1400 hrs and she tried to get entry into the New PG Hostel. Noticing this, hostel students, restrained her from going inside. Then she picked up quarrel with the students without disclosing her identity as press reporter and behaved as a stranger. Sensing the commotion and gathering of students at New PG Hostel, the nearby Picket Police personnel rushed to the New PG Hostel and dispersed the students. During police enquiry too she did not disclose her identity to the Police. Further in order to defuse the tension prevailing at the New PG Hostel, the Police shifted her to the Police Station for verification duly escorted by women Police, wherein she showed her ID card and orally disclosed her identity as Press Reporter of The Hindu, thereafter she was let off. The Police never mishandled her but shifted her from New PG Hostel to the Police Station to save her from the wrath of the students and to verify her identity.


Following two adjournments dated 15.2.2016 and 12.4.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Laxmi Narayana Chebrolu, ACP, Hyderabad City appeared for the respondent. The Council took suo-motu cognizance when it came to the notice that a journalist was roughed up when she went to cover the ‘beaf festival’ at Osmania University. When the Inquiry Committee taken up matter on 15.2.2016, the Assistant Commissioner of police informed the Committee that the journalist was apprehended and transferred to the police station for her safety. Taking note of the same, the Inquiry Committee directed for issuance of notice to the concerned journalist namely Ms. Nikhila Henry.

Despite service of Notice, she has not chosen to appear. In the face of it, the Inquiry Committee accepts the explanation putforth by the respondent and recommends for dropping of the proceeding.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to drop the proceeding.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. No. 4 File No.13/36/10-11-PCI Shri C S Kalra The Chief Post Master General Editor/Publisher vs Delhi Postal Circle University Today Delhi. Delhi.


This complaint dated 3.6.2010 was filed by the Editor/Publisher, University

Today, Delhi against Chief Post Master General, Delhi alleging unwarranted and illegal closure of Tilak Nagar Post Office for receiving and transmitting copies of his newspaper. The complainant submitted that University Today is registered with postal authorities’ upto December 31, 2011 which permits him to mail copies from Tilak Nagar Post Office in West Delhi. Suddenly, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi issued a letter on 29.4.2010 informing him that the competent authority decided to reduce/delete the name of Tilak Nagar Posting Centre and 5 other post offices in Delhi Circle leaving 11 post offices in whole of Delhi Circle to accept registered newspapers for transmission. The complainant further submitted that the action of the postal authorities is arbitrary, unilateral and without any authority of law in the absence of suitable amendments to Post Office Guide and mandatory publication in the Gazette of India. The complainant drew the attention of the respondent on 3.5.2010 and got a reply on 1.6.2010 in which ‘operational reasons’ was mentioned as the reason for the anomaly.

Notice for Comments was issued to the respondents on 6.8.2010

Comments

The respondent vide his comments dated 15.11.2010 submitted that SSPO, New Delhi, West Division vide his letter dated 29.4.2010 requested the publisher to opt for an office convenient to him for receiving and transmitting copies of his newspaper and submit option within 3 days. When Editor/Publisher informed that three days, time given to him was not enough to make up his mind to make an option, it was open to the Publisher to discuss the issue with SSPOs concerned to get the adequate time for the purpose but the complainant did not discuss the issue. Thereafter, the publisher was invited for a meeting with CPMG vide letter dated 14.5.2010 to discuss the issue on 21.5.2010. In the said meeting, the complainant was apprised that due to operational reasons, it was felt not to change the proposed procedure of rationalizing of posting of registered newspaper and the decision was communicated to the complainant through SSPO, West Division.

Counter-Comments

In the counter-comments dated 6.11.2011, the complainant submitted that PCI must inquire as to what was on fire and what promoted the overzealous SSP to give just three days (of which one was a Sunday). Such arrogance of authority is anathema to democracy and contrary to rule of law. Further, the complainant submitted that in the meeting on May 21, 2010, the Respondent, joined by the SSP New Delhi West Division constantly pleaded of the “operational reasons” without actually explaining what those

operational reasons all about. The complainant submitted that the reply is misleading, without application of mind, disregard of laws and requested the Council that arrangement of posting from Tilak Nagar Post Office without hindrance and strictures be passed against the respondent for unwarranted incursion into the liberty to post his newspaper.

In further counter-comments dated 21.1.2013, the complainant submitted that for the last few months the postage stamps of 25 paise denomination used by small newspapers vanished from all the post offices in Delhi Circle. Inquiries revealed that this was a decision to increase the postal tariff through backdoor by forcing the newspapers to use 50 paise stamps instead of 25 paise. He submitted that the postal department cannot use this unfair method since there is a well laid procedure for change of postal tariff which needs approval from the Parliament. The complainant alleged harassment by the postal authorities by creating difficult situations for small newspapers and requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Supplementary Reply filed by Respondent

The respondent while complying the directions of the Inquiry Committee vide his supplementary reply dated 5.8.2013 submitted that during the year 2010, Directorate had ordered to rationalize the number of offices accepting Registered News Papers for Posting and concentrate it in one office to improve mail efficiency by providing complete infrastructure in that particular office. Accordingly, an exercise was carried out to ascertain the per day average mail volume available in all 18 offices which were accepting RNP. Due to low quantum of mail of 7 POs including Tilak Nagar PO, the accepting offices had been reduced from 18 to 11. The respondent submitted that this was informed to complainant and provided Head Office i.e. Naraina Head Office in West Division for posting of his Registered News Papers.

Response of Assistant Director, Office of CPMG, Delhi Circle

The respondent Assistant Director, Office of CPMG, Delhi Circle vide letter dated 19.3.2014 submitted that the Delhi Circle followed the policy made by the Directorate on rationalization of posing office of registered newspaper in Delhi. He also stated that the case has been forwarded to Directorate for examination and taking appropriate decision into the matter.

Response of Assistant Director (MO), O/o CPMG, Delhi Circle

The Assistant Director (MO), O/o CPMG, Delhi Circle vide his letter dated 24.7.2014 submitted that the matter was discussed with the Postal Directorate and further the complainant was called upon for personal hearing on 9.7.2014 in the chamber of Postmaster General (BD). He further submitted that since the Department streamlined processing of posting of Registered Newspaper which is a subsidized product of Department, it may not be possible to change the policy of the Department at this juncture by increasing the number of Post Offices of booking Regd. Newspapers. He also stated that all grievance of the complainant’s articles (Regd. Newspaper) will however be addressed

Respondent’s commentsdt. 2.7.2015

The respondent, Assistant Director (Mail Operation), O/O CPMG, Delhi, Circle, New Delhi vide letter dt. 2.7.2015 stated that this circle is constrained to accept the claim

of the complainant for allowing acceptance of posting of his registered newspaper at Tilak Nagar Post Office.

Complainant’s comments dt. 2.8.2015

The complainant vide letter dated 2.8.2015 requested that the Director General (Posts) be made the primary defendant so that the PCI has the benefit of complete picture. He stated that the CPMG office is disabled or is in no mood to accept the recommendation of the PCI Inquiry Committee. The complainant further while reiterating his points, raised his initial complaint.

Further response received from the respondent

The respondent filed his parawise counter vide letter dated 7.9.2015 and stated that the distance given by the office is correct which is available on the internet. He further stated that the Postal Department request bulk customer for segregation in 88 destinations for across Indian and for 95 destinations for Delhi. Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following several adjournments, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri S.K. Chowdhury, Post Master General (Operation), Delhi Postal Circle along with Shri P.C. Sharma, Assistant Director appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint and all other relevant papers. It also heard the post Master General of Delhi Postal Circle. The Post Master General, Delhi Circle stated that no service other than receiving and transmitting copies of newspapers/magazines has been stopped from Tilak Nagar Post Office. It is his stand that the receipt and transmission of newspapers from various post offices have been rationalised and for operational reasons, the said facility from Tilak Nagar Post Office has been withdrawn. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the policy which is detrimental to the easy circulation of newspapers needs to be avoided. The Inquiry Committee would like to direct the Department of Post to revisit the policy and consider allowing the facility from Tilak Nagar Post Office. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint in the aforesaid terms.


Sl. No. 5 FileNo.13/35/12-13-PCI 1. Shri Iliyaskhan, 1. The Chief Secretary,

Owner/Printer/Publisher/Editor Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

2. Shri Akramkhan, Editor 2. The Secretary Home Department, 3. Shri Sayed Najakat, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

District Reporter 3. The Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Barasta Toofan, Marathi Weekly, 4. Special Inspector General of Aurangabad Edition, Jalna, vs. Police, Aurangabad Region, Maharashtra Maharashtra State, Mumbai

5. Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner Office,

Aurangabad.

6. Shri Somnath Gharge, Deputy Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner Office, Aurangabad.

7. Shri Rameshwar Thorat, Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Aurangabad

8. Shri Beheti, Police Inspector, Police Station City Chowk, Aurangabad.

9. Shri Kulkarni, Police Inspector Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad.

10. Shri Harish Khatavkar, Police Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, Aurangabad.

11. Shri N.P. Shinde, Police Sub Inspector, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad.


This complaint dated 1.3.2012 was jointly filed by Shri Iliyaskhan, Owner/Printer/Publisher/Editor, Shri Akramkhan, Editor and Shri Sayed Najakat, District Reporter, Barasta Toofan, Marathi Weekly, Aurangabad Edition, Jalna, Maharashtra against 1) The Chief Secretary 2) The Secretary, Home Department 3) The Director General of Police, Govt. of Maharashtra 4) Special Inspector General of Police, Aurangabad Region 5) Police Commissioner, Aurangabad 6) Shri Somnath Gharge, Deputy Police Commissioner, Aurangabad 7) Shri Rameshwar Thorat, (Police Inspector), Crime Branch, Aurangabad 8) Shri Khushal Chand Beheti (Police Inspector), Police Station City Chowk, Aurangabad 9) Shri Kulkarni (Police Inspector), Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad10) Shri Harish Khatavkar (Police Sub-Inspector), Crime Branch, Aurangabad and 11) Shri N.P. Shinde (Police Sub Inspector), Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad alleging harassment by registering false & concocted cases against him and co-workers of his newspaper following publication of critical news items based on real the facts in his newspaper between the period from 8.7.2011 to 23.10.2011 under the captions “Gambling (Zanna Manna) haunts flourished in the city of Badnapur(8.7.2011)”, “Gambling (Zanna Manna) continues in the City(9.9.2011)”, “Harish Khatavkar of Crime Branch close the Illegal Collection (16.9.2011)”, “Nanga naach of Aurangabad Police (16.9.2011)”, “Black Marketing of Kerosene at Aurangabad (23.9.2011)”, “Aurangabad: Gambling (Matka) open with grace of police (23.9.2011)”and “Demand to restrain plying of Rickshaws without permit (23.9.2011)”. According to the complainant, after the publication of news item in his newspaper’s issue dated 8.7.2011 regarding Gambling and matka, the operative of gambling attempted murderous assault on him and robbed him. He lodged a complaint and an offence vide crime No. 100/2011 u/s 395, 397 IPC was registered against SK Awez and four others in Badnapur Police Station. The police arrested SK Awez who was remanded to police custody there and that he was remanded to M.C.R. by the Court. The complainant submitted that he got recorded his supplementary statement to the Investigating Officer stating three names but none of them was found. The complainant has alleged that being annoyed by the above news items, the Police Officers of Aurangabad registered a false case of extortion against him and arrested him illegally, snatched his mobile and other articles and registered an offence against him in Kranti Chowk Police Station on 21.9.2011 u/s 384 of IPC and confined him in police lockup.He was produced in the Court where bail was granted to him. After two weeks he received his mobile by the Order of the Court but still other articles have not been given back to him by the police. The complainant submitted that vide letter dated 3.10.2012 addressed to Police Commissioner, Aurangabad he requested for C.I.D. inquiry of the crime No. 357/2011 u/s 384 of IPC and for action against the police officers/subordinates for misuse of power and for action as per law against those who tried to snatch away freedom of press and deprived him of human rights and constitutional rights. Being annoyed, the Police Commissioner and other police officers had also conspired to entangle and harass him, his family members and his press reporter. The complainant alleged that the Police officer of City Chowk Police Station has registered a false and bogus cases against him on 6.10.2011 vide crime No. 287/2011 u/s 341, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The complainant surrendered in Police Station and the Court released him on bail. He further submitted that the Police Inspector, Shri Shinde and his other associates harassed him by searching his house and threatened his father not to write anything against them in his newspaper. The complainant further submitted that the Press Council of India vide its earlier decision dated 2.3.2009 passed strictures against the police officers, issued the directives and ordered that police officer should not interfere with the journalistic duties. He

submitted that Home (Police) Department, Maharashtra State is not obeying the order of Press Council. Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 23.12.2013. Report filed by the ACP, Aurangabad and SpeciaI IGP, Aurangabad

In response to Council’s letter dated 19.10.2015, Shri Vijay Sable, Section Officer to the Government of Maharashtra, vide his letter dated 18.1.2016 submitted the requisite report received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and the Special Inspector General of Police, Aurangabad in Marathi language. Mr. Vijay Sable stated that the Special Inspector General of Police was asked to give specific comments about the correctness of the allegations made by Shri Illiyaskhan, Editor/publisher, Barasta Toofan weekly, Badnapur, Jalna. He further stated that the report from the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad is also called for and is awaited.

Report filed by CP, Aurangabad

Shri Amitesh Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad (M.S.) vide his letter dated 5.2.2016 stated that a detailed inquiry report had already been submitted to the Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Mantralaya, Mumbai vide letter dated 18.1.2016 and submitted a photocopy of the same. In the report, the list of offences registered against the complainant, Shri Illiyaskhan in police commissionerate, Aurangabad along with their status was mentioned. It was stated therein that three offences were registered against the complainant at PS City Chowk and Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad City were filed not by the police but by the public as they were troubled by the Illiyaskhan in the aforesaid mentioned offences. The report stated that complaints given by the complainant and his associates against the police were meaningless.

Complainant’s Response The complainant vide his letter dated 13.4.2016 reiterated the contents of his complaint and further stated that the Hon’ble Press Council of India vide its decision dated 2.3.2009 passed the strictures against the police officers and issued directions to the effect that the police should not harass him while performing his journalistic duties. He alleged that the police department is not following these directions and has been harass and defaming him time to time. Response from ACP, Crime Branch, Aurangabad The ACP, Crime Branch, Aurangabad City vide his letter dated 4..6.2016 provided details of the cases registered against the complainants at various police stations:

1. CR No. 287/11 u/s 341/143/147/323/504/506 IPC at City Chowk PS, Aurangabad – Complainants got anticipatory bail in this case and after filing the Chargesheet, case was closed.

2. CR No. 356/11 u/s 394/341/506 IPC at City Chowk PS, Aurangabad – B Final summary report was submitted in the Court.

3. CR No. 357/11 u/s 384 IPC – Pending before Hon’ble CJM, Aurangabad.

He further stated that more offences are registered in Badnapur PS against Shri Illiyas Khan. The complainant has been misusing his position as an editor.


Following two adjournments dated 7.9.2015 and 13.4.2016, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Iliyas Khan Abdul Magid Khan, the complainant no. 1 appeared in person and states that he represents other complainants also. Shri Shesharao Abaji Udar, Assistant Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Aurangabad City appeared for the respondent. It is a common ground that CR No. 357/11 registered at Kranti Chowk, Police Station, Aurangabad u/s 384 IPC is pending for trial before a competent court. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee declines to make any comment on that. However, the Inquiry Committee would like to observe that no journalist, including the complainant herein, be harassed in any manner for his writings. The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid observations. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid observation.


Sl. No. 6 F.No.13/83/11-12-PCI Shri Sudhir Kumar Madeshia, Shri Gorakhnath Saroj, Correspondent, Amar Ujala, vs. SHO, Bahraich, U.P. District Bahraich, U.P. Shri Diwakar Tripurari, Zonal Officer, Nanpara, U.P.

Adjudication Dated _9.9.2016

This complaint dated 29.10.2011 was filed by Shri Sudhir Kumar Madeshia, Correspondent, Amar Ujala, District Bahraich, U.P. against Shri Gorakhnath Saroj, SHO, Bahraich, U.P. and Shri Diwakar Tripurari, Zonal Officer, Nanpara, U.P. for implicating him in a false case as a reprisal measure for his critical writings. The complainant stated that he published a news item on 27.9.2011 relating to the kidnapping and murder of a man from the village Mihipurwa. Infuriated with the impugned news item, the SHO falsely implicated his name in an FIR, relating to an incident of stone pelting on the statue of Durga during Durga Statue Visarjan where the complainant went for coverage of news. He further stated that Uttar Pradesh Working Journalist Union and Uttar Pradesh Journalist Association, Nanpara requested the Superintendent of Police to remove the name of the complainant from the FIR as it was false. On this, the SP gave assurance that they would remove his name and provide him justice. In this regard, the complainant sent a letter dated 15.10.2011 to the SP, Beheraich and District Magistrate but no action was taken. A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued by the Council to the respondents on 20.1.2012 for their comments. Comments The Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and the Special Secretary, Govt. of U.P. vide their respective comments dated 18.3.2012 & 16.4.2012 stated that an investigation was conducted in the matter by the Superintendent of Police and as per their report dated 15.3.2012, it was found that on 7.10.2011 the complainant and his friends pelted stones on the statue of the Durga during Durga Statue Visarjan and also on the police officials. Accordingly, a case No. 591/11 u/s 147/148/336/353/332/341/153A was registered on 8.10.2011. Another case No. 592B/11 u/s 435/427 was also registered against the complainant on the basis of the written statement of Shri Samsuddin. Another case No. 592C/11 u/s 435/436/395/153A/427 was also registered on 9.10.2011 in the same incident on the basis of the information received from Shri Kallu which is pending in the Court of Law. He further stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant were also mentioned in the investigation. Counter Comments The complainant vide letter dated 12.06.2012 stated that owing to illness, he replied late. He was admitted in the hospital on 09.02.2012 due to the harassment meted out by the police officials. The complainant further submitted that the following persons filed a statement in his favour to remove his name from this case for not being guilty:

1) Abdul Reheman, President from Uttar Pradesh Working Journalist

Union.

2) S/Shri Vinay Kumar Shrivastav, Jaidesh Kumar Shrivastav, and Satya Prakash Gupta from Uttar Pradesh Patrkaar Sangh.

3) Smt. Savitri Bai Phule, MLA, BJP.

4) Hasib Ahemad, Reporter, Dainik Jagran.

5) Shoiab Ahemad Hashmi, Reporter, Dainik Janmorcha.

6) Vinod Kumar Sharma, Reporter, Dainik Lokmat.

7) Durgesh Kumar Kushwaha, Reporter, Rashtriya Sahara.

8) Anil Kumar Khushwaha, Reporter, Daily News.

The complainant stated that Police official told him that they would remove his name from the case but no action was taken in this matter.

Matter Adjourned

The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2013 at New Delhi. Noting that the matter is sub-judice. It therefore, decided to adjourn the case,

directing till the disposal of the criminal case the police to not to harass the complainant. Further Developments A Final Reminder was issued on 13.8.2015 to all the parties to file the copy of judgement in the criminal case failing which the matter will be decided on the basis of the available material without any further exchange of correspondence. No response filed till date.


Following an adjournment dated 24.7.2013, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Sudhir Kumar Madeshiya, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Ajay Bharadwaj, Circle Officer, Nanpara appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that it is a common ground that the matter is now pending for trial before the competent court of law. In that view of the matter, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.


Sl. No. 7 File No. 13/11/11-12-PCI Shri Ashafaq Ullah Khan, Shri Arun Dixit, Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, vs. Circle Officer, Konch, Jalon, U.P. Madhogadh Circle, Jalon, U.P. Police Authorities, Luknow, U.P.


This complaint dated 4.4.2011 was filed by Shri Ashafaq Ullah Khan, Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara, Konch, Jalon, U.P. against Shri Arjun Dixit, Circle Officer, Jalon, U.P. and the police authorities, U.P. alleging harassment of him due to critical writings published in paper’s issues dated from 17-20 March, 2011 under the caption “DIG se lagai nyaya ki guhar” and “Ab C.O. karnege Lekhpal ke saath maarpeet ki gatna ki jaanch” in which he had exposed the working of the C.O. Konch. The complainant alleged that as a reprisal measure he was implicated in false case No. 379/2011 u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1) x of SC/ST Act registered in Konch Police Station. The complainant further stated that as the matter related to the Circle Officer personally, who tried to falsely implicate him under SC/ST Act and was clear case of suppression of freedom of press. He added that after his request, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shri Rakesh Shankar changed the investigation officer from C.O. Konch to C.O. City Urai, Shri Kamlesh Dikshit but despite that he did not get the justice. A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 18.7.2011 and again on 9.10.2011 for their comments. Comments

The respondent District Magistrate, Jalon, Urai vide letter dated 14.10.2011 informed that an investigating report of Superintendent of Police, Jalon dated 2.10.2011 was received in which it was mentioned that this instant case No. 379/2011 u/s 323/504/506 of IPC and 3(1)(10) under SC/ST Act was registered against BANNE, BHUKANN, PAPPU NAUSAAD S/o TILLU PATHAN and ASHAFAQ KHAN aka BALLU S/o ABDUL SAMAD who surrendered on 7.5.2011. It was further mentioned that the letter No. 09 dated 10.5.2011 framing allegation was prepared against all the five accused on the basis of this investigation report and the complainant was found guilty as per the Report.

The respondent, Shri Arun Kumar Dixit, Circle Officer, Talvehat, Janpad, Lalitpur,

U.P. vide his letter dated 19.9.2013 had informed that the Superintendent of Police, Jalon vide his letter dated 29.3.2011 had transferred the Investigation in the matter to Shri Kamlesh Dixit, Circle Officer (City), Urai. Thereafter, the Circle Officer (City) conducted the inquiry in the matter and concluded the investigation by submitting charge sheet no. 9/11 against the accused. The case is pending before the Court. He further stated that the allegations against him were baseless.

Matter Adjoured

The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee on 20.9.2013 at New Delhi.

“Noting a criminal case is pending against the complainant it decided to await

and the decision in the criminal case and accordingly adjourned the matter.” Further Developments

The complainant vide his letter dated 4.2.2015 informed the Council that the matter is still pending and as and when final judgment announced, it would be forwarded to the Council in due course. A Final Reminder was thereafter issued to the respondents on 6.7.2015 with a request to file the requisite response while forwarding a copy of the complainant’s letter dated 4.2.2015 to the parties but no response was received. Report of the Inquiry Committee

Following an adjournment dated 20.9.2013, the matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. It took note of a prayer for adjournment made by the complainant. As the matter is pending since long, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to accept the same. Shri Sankay Kumar Singh, SDM, Orai, District Jalaun. U.P. appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee perused the complaint as also the connected papers. From the perusal of record, it is apparent that the matter is pending for trial before the competent court of law. The Inquiry Committee, therefore, declined to proceed in the matter any further and recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly. Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint.

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Sl. No. 8 F.No.13/110/11-12-PCI Shri Anil Kumar Khushwaha, Shri Khalid Naseen, Daily News Activist, vs. SHO, Motipur Police Bahraich, U.P. Station Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Zonal Officer,Nanpara The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, U.P. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, U.P. The District Magistrate, District Beheraich, U.P. The Superintendent of Police District Beheraich, U.P.


This complaint dated 23.9.2011 was filed by Shri Anil Kumar Khushwaha, Daily News Activist, Bahraich, U.P. against Shri Khalid Naseen, SHO, Motipur Police Station and Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Zonal Officer, Nanpara alleging his implication in a false case as a reprisal measure due to the critical writings. The complainant stated that as a conspiracy respondents have registered a case no. 479/2001 u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1) SC/ST Act on 6.7.2011 while he was nowhere connected to that incident. He also stated that on 11.7.2011, All India Journalist Association, Bahraich Branch organized a rally in this regard and the Superintendent of Police assured that the case would be dismissed as it was falsely registered. The complainant sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Beheraich in this regard on 9.7.2011 and to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 4.7.2011 but received no response. A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 3.2.2012 for their comments.

Comments

The Superintendent of Police, Beheraich vide letter dated 4.5.2012 submitted that an investigation was conducted in matter by the Zonal Officer, Nanpara and in his report dated 19.4.2012 it was mentioned that on the basis of the information received from one Shri Ram Bilaas Das on 6.7.2011, a case no. 479 u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1) of SC/ST Act was registered against the complainant and others.

Shri Ram Vishal Mishr, Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Administration vide his letter dated 18.05.2012 stated that an investigation was conducted on this issue and it was found that all the allegations levelled by Shri Anil Kumar Kushwaha (complainant) were completely baseless and false.

Counter Comments

The complainant vide letter dated 28.05.2012 stated that the comments given by the police officials were not based on the true facts and it was completely based on the FIR. The complainant alleged that the Shri Khalid Nasim, SHO of Motipur Police Station and Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Zonal Officer, Nanpara had conspired against him in order to implicate him in a fake case and therefore he demanded a high level enquiry in the matter. He stated that no statement was taken by him in this inquiry. The complainant further stated that the Zonal Officer in his report mentioned Shri Ram Vilas as the Priest of Semrehena Temple but according to the complainant, he is not related to that temple, hence the comments were not based on the true facts.

Further Comments

The Additional District Magistrate, Beheraich vide his letter dated 26.6.2013, while enclosing the letter dated 4.5.2012 of the Superintendent of Police informed that an investigation was conducted in matter by the Zonal Officer, Nanpara and in the report it was mentioned that on the basis of the information received from one Shri Ram Bilaas Das on 6.7.2011, a case no. 479 u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1) of SC/ST Act was registered against the complainant and others. He further informed that the Court has closed the investigation while referring the charge sheet no. 49/11 which was without the arrest of accused.

Complainant’s Response

The complainant vide his letter dated 5.4.2014 intimated the Council that the Governor of U.P allowed the withdrawal of the criminal cases filed against him and the procedure of withdrawal is at last stage.

Matter Adjourned Sine-e-die

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 24.7.2013 at Varanasi.

Noting the matter is sub-judice, it decided to await the judgement of the criminal court with the direction to the police to file the status of the case after six months and ensure that the complainant does not face any harassment.

Further Developments

A Final Reminder was issued to the parties on 13.8.2015 requesting them to file the requisite response failing which the matter will be decided on the basis of material available without further exchange of correspondence but no response was received.

Report of the Inquiry Committee:

The matter again came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 7.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Anil Kumar, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Ajay Bhadaly, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Circle officer, Nanpara, Bahraich, U.P. appeared for the respondent. It is a common ground that in respect of the subject matter of the complaint, a criminal trial is going on before the competent court of law. In view of this, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter and recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly.

Held



Sl. No. 9 F.No.13/195/14-15-PCI

Shri Manoj Gupta, Press Photographer/Correspondent, Nav Karmyug Prakashan, Banda, Uttar Pradesh.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The Secretary, Home(Police) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow The Superintendent of Police, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. The Circle Officer, City, Banda, Uttar Pradesh. Shri Ranvir Singh, Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali City Banda, Uttar Pradesh.


This undated complaint was received on 25.3.2015 from Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Correspondent/Press Photographer, Nav Karmyug Prakashan, Banda, U.P. against Shri Ranvir Singh, Inspector-in-charge, Police Station-Kotwali, Banda for misbehaving and implicating him in false cases due to publication of critical news item in paper’s issue dated 19.1.2015 under the caption “खेत से बाल ूभरे टशरैर �नकालने पर �ववाद, फाय�रंग” Box news “कोतवाल क� गाड़� के पलछे ओवरलोड टक”. According to the complainant on 6.3.2015 with a view to depict Holi celebration’s in the photograph he was standing in a local market at Banda where the respondent came, began misbehaving with the people and started driving them away. On being questioned by complainant vis-à-vis such rude behaviour, the respondent got aggressive and forced him in a police jeep. When the general public, Additional S.P. and C.O., City intervened in the matter, the respondent released him after threatening him. The complainant informed the Director General of Police, Lucknow and Superintendent of Police, Banda in this regard but no action was taken.

Notice for statement in reply was issued to the respondents on 14.5.2015.

Reply filed by Superintendent of Police, Banda

The Superintendent of Police, Banda in his reply dated 19.6.2015 submitted that the complainant and his associates during Holi celebrations were playing loud music. Despite the instructions of Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Nagar, Banda Shri Ranvir Singh not to play loud music or D.J. as this was disturbing the peace in the area, the complainant and his friends continued to play loud music and did not pay heed to the

instructions which also led to traffic jam. The Senior Superintendent of Police and other officers reached the spot and with the help of Police Force the road was cleared. The respondent further submitted that the complainant has a criminal background and after investigation it has been found that in the year 1999 he and his associates burnt a police station at Kalavnganj (Chhoti Bazar) and a case was registered at Police Station Kotwali City Banda 152/1999 u/Section 147/148/342/353/435/504/506/440 of IPC and 7 Cr. Law amendment Act. The respondent also submitted that this complaint was filed to pressurise them so as to deviate the investigation. The respondent submitted that the President, Banda Press Club, Banda informed him on 10.6.2015 that the complainant is not associated with any newspaper and he is just a photographer.

Counter comments

The complainant vide his counter comments dated 28.8.2015 submitted that the statement of the respondent is totally false and fabricated and has been filed to mislead the Council. The complainant submitted that he was at the site for collection of news and no such incident had happened as mentioned in the report. He has also submitted that the cases filed against him were false and fabricated and the Hon’ble court has given him clean chit in all the cases. The complainant submitted that the President, Banda Press Club, Banda is a District Reporter of Swatantra Chetna and a case was registered against him u/S 409/420/467/468/471 IPC for committing fraud and misappropriation of government funds. He has further submitted that the inspector-in-charge works under the minerals mafia and news reports in this regard has been published by various newspapers. The DIG had conducted an inquiry in this matter and the respondent was suspended. He has also submitted that after filing a complaint with the Press Council of India, the police has been continuously harassing him. He has requested the Council to take action against the erring police officials.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 8.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Manoj Kumar, the complainant appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and perused the record and is of the opinion that the allegations made by the complainant that he has been falsely implicated in cases for critical writing is unfounded and the Inquiry Committee, accordingly recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint. Held



Sl. No. 10 File No.13/147/15-16-PCI.

Shri Mahipal Singh, The Chief Secretary, Journalist, Government of U.P., U.N.I., Lucknow. Amroha, Moradabad (U.P.) The Secretary,

Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Shri Omkar Singh, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad (U.P.) The District Collector, Amroha (U.P.) The Superintendent of Police, Amroha (U.P.) The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Amroha (U.P.).

Adjudication

Dated _9.9.2016

This complaint dated 21.10.2015 was filed by Shri Mahipal Singh, Journalist, U.N.I., Amroha (Moradabad) against the police authorities for their alleged misbehaviour with him during coverage of news. According to the complainant, the Commissioner & DIG, Moradabad alongwith the Dy. IGP, Collector, Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police of Amroha organized an open discussion with the local people on 20.10.2015 in the premises of Kotwali-Dindholi keeping in view the communal disturbance in Village Patai-Khalsa. The complainant asserts that after taking few snaps of the meeting when he sat amongst the local people for coverage of news and Shri Omkar Singh, Dy. IGP, Moradabad Region asked for his introduction in a very insulting tone. The complainant submitted that when he gave his introduction, Addl. Superintendent of Police-Shri Vijay Gautam forcibly moved him out from the premises. He has requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the respondent-Government of U.P. on 4.1.2016.

Reply of Deputy IGP, Moradabad

Shri Omkar Singh, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region vide his reply dated 22.1.2016 informed that procession of Moharram was scheduled to be held on 24.10.2015 and at the same time procession of Dusshera was also scheduled to be held at many places. The respondent has further informed that there is a village-Patai

Khalsa under the jurisdiction of Kotwali-Dindholi in Amroha, where both Hindu-Muslims are residing. In past, village experienced communal disturbance during procession of Moharram. To ease the tension amongst both the communities, the respondent had arranged a meeting with the representatives of both the communities of Patai Khalsa village in the premises of Kotwali Dindholi for fixing the time of processions of Dusshera (Ramlila) and Moharram as both the events were due on same date and time. The respondent further submitted that at the time of discussion, they asked everyone, who were present there to introduce themselves and in this course, perhaps complainant would have also been asked for introduction. The respondent stated that by asking for the introduction, he had no intention to defame and slander the complainant. The respondent further submitted that the Addl. Superintendent of Police asked the persons, who were not related to the matter, to leave the premises so that discussion could be hold. The respondent stated that he was not familiar with the complainant, thus, there was no reason to deliberately defame him and he also denied having used unparliamentary language against the complainant. The respondent stated that a casual approach in handling communally sensitive matter could have led to spread of communal tension/violence to other villages as well. According to the respondent, he was honoured by His-Excellency President of India for commendable service in the police. While denying the allegations, the respondent stated that if the complainant feels that he was defamed on any ground, he regrets for the same.

Reply of Superintendent of Police, Amroha

The Superintendent of Police, Amroha vide his reply dated 16.2.2016 while reiterating the reply of the Dy. IGP, Moradabad stated that no misbehaviour was meted out to the complainant.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Mahipal Singh, the complainant appeared in person while the respondents are represented by various officials of the Government of U.P. namely Shri Sheel Kumar, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Mohd Naeem, Dy. Collector and Shri Vijay Gautam, Additional Superintendent of Police. It is the assertion of the complainant that while he had gone to cover news he was forcibly removed from the place. Mr. Vijay Gautam, Additional Superintendent of Police present in person has expressed regret. Such regret has also been expressed by the DIGP. In view of the aforesaid, the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter any further. The Inquiry Committee, accordingly, recommends for the dismissal of the complaint. Held



Sl. No. 11 File No.13/43/15-16-PCI. Shri Rajesh Itoriya, The Chief Secretary, Bureau Chief, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Raj Express, Bhopal. Sagar (M.P.). The Secretary,

Home (Police) Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal. The Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal. The District Collector, Sagar (M.P.). Shri Sachin Kumar Atulkar, Superintendent of Police, Sagar (M.P.). Shri Gautam Solanki, City Superintendent of Police, Sagar (M.P.). Shri Arun Soni, City Inspector,Police Station-Gopalganj, Sagar (M.P.) Shri Sunil Sikarwar, Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Gopalganj, Sagar (M.P.) Shri Jabbar Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Gopalganj, Sagar (M.P.) Shri Deepak Shukla, Constable, Police Station-Gopalganj, Sagar (M.P.) Shri Ravindra Kumar, Constable, Police Station-Gopalganj, Sagar (M.P.)


This complaint dated 25.5.2015 was filed by Shri Rajesh Itoriya, Bureau Chief, Raj Express, Sagar (M.P.) against the police authorities alleging manhandling, harassment and threats to implicate him in false cases due to publication of critical writings. According to the complainant, Shri R.D. Tekam, S.I., PS-Padmakar came to his office on the direction of City S.P.-Shri Gautam Solanki on 22.1.2015 for investigation of news published one year back and forcibly asked him to file his statement. When he refused to file any statement, Shri Solanki asked for his residential address in a threatening tone. Following this episode, he published news items in this regard in Raj Express issues dated 24.1.2015 and 29.1.2015 under the captions “पेस क� सवतंं ता पर प�ुलस का हमला” and “सलएसपल ने रयय पछूा �नवास का पता” respectively. The complainant further submitted that he also published a news captioned “कश मरे को देखकर भागे वद�वाले जआुर�” along with photograph of gambling police officials. Annoyed with this, Shri Deepak Shukla, Constable, PS-Gopalganj, as a part of conspiracy used to come to his office regularly from February 17 to 19 and insisted him to publish the news about problems prevailing in the District Hospital. The complainant alleged that being unaware of constable’s nefarious design, he along with his subordinate reached the District Hospital on 20.2.2015 for coverage where police officials of Gopalganj PS manhandled them, snatched their mobile and released them next day from the police station with a threat not to publish any news against the police again. According to the complainant, he along with other journalists gave a memorandum in this regard to the IGP for taking action against the erring police officials and on 25.2.2015 Superintendent of Police, Shri Sachin Atulkar called them in his office and assured for action in the matter but no action was taken. Thereafter, they with the State Home Minister, who passed direction to the DGP for taking action within 15 days but all in vein. The complainant further informed that the journalists boycotted the press conference of the Superintendent of Police by demanding the justice and upset with this development, to justify the action of the police officials of manhandling the complainant, they took a backdate application on 20.2.2015 from the Civil Surgeon of the District Hospital, Shri Indraj Singh alleging that the complainant and his subordinate in an inebriated condition were making uproar in the hospital wards and misbehaving with the patients and their family members. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Civil Surgeon, an FIR was registered against him (complainant) after two months of the incident and a Challan was placed before the Hon’ble Court. The complainant informed that the matter is pending consideration in court of law. The complainant alleged that the actions of the respondents are reprisal measure due to publication of critical writings. Notices for Statement in Reply were issued to the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 27.7.2015. Written Statements The Superintendent of Police, Sagar in his reply dated 24.8.2015 while denying the allegation of the complainant stated that the complaint is false and motivated. The respondent informed that a copy of news item under the caption वद� के रौब ने मानवता को �कया ्मरसार- बच्े �गड़�गड़ा रहे ेे मशडम मसुकुरा रह� ल ं published in Raj Express issue dated 2.1.2014 was sent to the City SP, Sagar for investigation. During the investigation, three youngsters riding a bike denied any such incident of being victimised by the S.I., while carrying out checking at Makroniya Square on New Year eve as referred in the news item. The said statement was recorded by them. However, when the complainant was contacted by Shri R.D. Tekam, S.I. for recording statement vis-à-vis facts published

in the impugned news, the complainant refused to record the statement. While denying the allegation of the complainant that he was threatened by the police, he stated that the complainant published news stories against them arbitrarily. With regard to the incident occurred in the Hospital on 20.2.2015, the respondent submitted that the matter was investigated by the then Addl. SP, Sagar and found that the incident had infact taken place. Accordingly, a case No.125/15 under Sections 294, 323, 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Madhya Pradesh Hospital & Doctor Service Protection Act, 2008 was registered in PS-Gopalganj. against the complainant and others. During the investigation, the allegation levelled was prima facie proved and a Challan No.116/15 dated 31.5.2015 was prepared and a case No.1905/15 dated 2.6.2015 was placed before the Hon’ble Court.

The respondent also produced a copy of the written statement of City Superintendent of Police, Sagar along with his written statement reiterating the same facts.

Written Statement of Chowki Incharge, Karrapur The Superintendent of Police, Sagar vide his further letter dated 4.9.2015 provided a copy of the written statement of Shri Sunil Sikarwar, Chowki Incharge, Karrapur (the then Sub-Inspector, PS-Gopalganj), who informed in his reply dated 18.8.2015 that at the night on February 20-21, 2015, after receiving a message from control room at around 12:35 p.m. he and his team reached District Hospital where three four fake journalists were misbehaving with the doctors, staff, patients and their family members. When he tried to counsel them, they started misbehaving with him and his team. On the complaint of the doctor and staff the matter was enquired into and they were identified as S/Shri Rajesh Itoriya, Pradeep and Sunil, who introduced themselves as journalists but they failed to establish their identity as journalists. Their Medical examination confirmed that they were confirmed under extremely intoxicated condition. After informing them ground of arrest they were arrested and later on released on bail. While denying the allegation of manhandling the respondent alleged that the complainant filed false and motivated complaint with a view to pressurise them. Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 11.2.2016 while reiterating his complaint alleged that the written statements of the respondents were false, motivated and far from the truth. The complainant further alleged that the SP, Sagar threatened to implicate him in false cases on 21.12.2015.

With regard to the status of the case No.1905/15, the complainant vide his email dated 13.4.2016 informed that on the basis of the complaint filed by the Civil Surgeon, an FIR was registered against him after two months of the incident and a Challan in several section (353, 294, 323 and Section 3 & 4 of Madhya Pradesh Hospital & Doctor Service Protection Act, 2008) was placed before the Hon’ble Court where Sections 353 and 294 were quashed against him and the matter is pending consideration with court of law. Further Comments of Superintendent of Police, Sagar Shri Sachin Kumar Atulkar, Superintendent of Police, Sagar, M.P. vide his comments dated 6.6.2016 stated that the whatever the information was asked from the complainant was a part of investigation process and not as a reprisal measure as alleged by the complainant. He further stated that the allegation of the complainant that he was asked by the police his name and address in order to pressurize him was fabricated and misleading. While denying the allegation of the complainant that he was threatened by

the police, he stated that the complainant had been publishing news stories against them arbitrarily.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Rajesh Itoriya, the complainant appeared in person while Shri Sachin Atulkar, Superintendent of Police, Sagar, M.P. appeared for the respondent. The complainant is the Bureau Chief of the newspaper ‘Raj Express’ and his allegation is that because of his critical writings, he has been implicated in false criminal cases and likely to be harassed by the police authorities in future. The Inquiry Committee has heard the complainant and the Superintendent of Police and has perused the entire record. The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that the grievance made by the complainant is misconceived.

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

complaint. Held



Sl. No. 12 File No.13/139/15-16-PCI. Shri Kamalkant Upmanyu, The Chief Secretary, State Vice-President/District President, Government of U.P., U.P. Journalists Association; and Lucknow (U.P.) President, Brij Press Club, Mathura, Mathura (U.P.) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow (U.P.). The District Collector,

Agra (U.P.). The Superintendent of Police, Agra (U.P.) The Station House Officer, Police Station-Sikandra, Agra (U.P.)

Adjudication

Dated _9.9.2016

Shri Kamalkant Upmanyu, State Vice-President/District President, U.P. Journalist Association and President, Brij Press Club, Mathura vide his letters dated 30.9.2015 drew attention of the Council towards sabotage at Amar Ujala office at Agra and manhandling of its employees by the supporters of Narain Sai, son of Asaram Bapu. The Association sought strict action against the offenders.

A Report on facts of the incident was called for from the Government of U.P vide

Council’s letter dated 16.10.2015. The Editor, Amar Ujala, Agra was requested to furnish detail information of the

incident. Reply of Amar Ujala

The Editor, Amar Ujala, Agra vide his letter dated 15.4.2016 informed that exaggerated with publication of a news report from Bhopal Dateline, 15-20 supporters of Asaram Bapu attacked the office of Amar Ujala and manhandled him and his colleagues. The Sikandra PS registered an FIR and arrested two assailants, who were later released bail. According to the editor, both the attackers along with their family members came to their office and expressed regret for their act and thereafter it was decided by the colleagues and the senior officers that they would not pursue the matter themselves but the police will continue its investigation. Response from Information Department, Agra

The Dy. Director, Information, Agra vide his letter dated 8.6.2016 informed that the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Agra has investigated the matter. A case has been registered in this regard and charge sheet no. 101 dated 4.2.2016 has been filed against four persons and investigation in respect of one accused is pending.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Amit Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager along with Shri P.R. Rajhans, Advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri Surjeet Singh, Addl. DIO, Agra and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Sub-Inspector appeared for the respondents. It is the allegation of the complainant that the office of the Amar Ujala at Agra was attacked by the supporters of Naraian Sai, son of Asaram Bapu. It has been brought to the notice of the Inquiry Committee that a case has been registered in regard to the said occurrence and charge sheet has been filed against four persons and investigation in respect of one accused is pending.

Noting the aforesaid facts the Inquiry Committee recommends for the disposal of the complaint. Held


Press Council of India Sl. No. 13 F.No.13/193/15-16-PCI Suo-motu cognizance with regard to intimidation and threats to Shri Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor of The Wire by student members of ABVP in Allahabad University


Attention of the Press Council of India was drawn towards a Press Statement issued by the Editors Guild of India regarding intimidation and threats to Shri Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor of The Wire by Student members of the ABVP in Allahabad University. The incident was strongly condemned by it. Shri Varadarajan had been invited to deliver a public lecture on “Democracy, the Media and Freedom of Expression” by the President of the Allahabad University Students’Union at Senate Hall of the University on 20.1.2016. According to the E.G.I statement, after students belonging to the ABVP threatened violence, the VC withdrew permission for the programme and got the district administration to prohibit it from being held in campus. The ABVP stated that Shri Varadarajan was anti-national and as such would not be allowed to set foot inside the campus. Thus, Shr Varadarajan was forced to deliver the lecture at a hall near the campus. After the lecture, when Shri Varadarajan went to meet the Vice Chancellor in his office along with students Union President, the ABVP surrounded the exit. It has been further stated that the University security warned Shri Varadarajan that they could not guarantee his safety and it was only after the police arrived that he was escorted safely. A Report on facts of the case was called for from the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Council’s letter dated 5.2.2016. Report from Sr. Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, U.P. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, U.P. vide his letter dated 9.5.2016 informed that the investigation was conducted by the Circle Officer, Allahabad who submitted a report dated 6.4.2016 which is self explanatory. According to the Report the President of the Student Union of Allahabad University, Ms. Richa Singh and others intend to organise a programme for Shri Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor of The Wire but other members of Student Union and some students protested against it. Due to excessive protest of students and in order to maintain peace, the University administration did not grant permission for organising the aforesaid programme and the same was duly intimated to the organisers. No such issue of threatening and intimidation came to light during the course of investigation. Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. Shri Ram Avtar Verma, Sub-Inspector appeared for the respondent. The Inquiry Committee has perused the entire record and would like to advise the Government of U.P. to ensure safety of the journalist.

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

Held

The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to Dispose of the complaint with the aforesaid observation.


Sl. No. 13(A) File No.13/145/15-16-PCI Shri Ashok Kumar Raina, The Chief Secretary, Editor/Publisher, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, The Northern Times, Jammu (J&K) Jammu (J&K)

The Commissioner/Secretary, Information Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu (J&K)

The Director, Information Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu (J&K)

The Joint Director, Information Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu (J&K)


This complaint dated 7.9.2015 was filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Raina,

Editor/Publisher, The Northern Times, Jammu against Information Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu for alleged harassment. According to the complainant, he received a letter dated 31.8.2015 from Shri Nagendra Singh Jamwal, Joint Director, Information, Jammu for attending his office on 4.9.2015 for redressal of his grievance. In response thereto, vide letter dated 3.9.2015 he expressed his inability in attending the office on 4.9.2015 without presence of at least one member from PCI and member of National Press Association and without the settlement of damage and compensation and restoration of his publications.

The complainant vide his further letter dated 8.1.2016 stated that he is migrant

journalist due to unfortunate mass exodus from the valley in the year 1990 and faced several challenges till date and Govt. of J&K settled him in a little cage tenement. According to the complainant, he had been deprived from every right/benefit unlawfully by the respondents. The complainant alleged that he had been forced to leave the profession of journalism which he is unable forgo as he is not in position to do any other job to look after the family properly. The complainant has informed that as per the advertisement policy of Govt. of J&K 1996, he was fully eligible and entitled to get the benefits of Government Advertisement for his publication but due to illegal, arbitrary behaviour of the respondents, he had been deprived of his rights on the ground of religion and regional discrimination. The complainant submitted that he made a representation to the Hon’ble Governor of J&K and the Hon’ble Governor has passed the order in his favour but the same was not implemented for the reasons best known to the respondents. The complainant further submitted that he also approached to the Hon’ble Minister of State for Information, Govt. of J&K and the said authority passed the order for consideration in his favour but due to malafide intention, respondents have put his file

out of sight deliberately despite several representations and recommendations submitted before the respondents from time to time. The respondents admitted the fact vide their communications that all the representations are placed on record but no action was taken in his favour. The complainant further submitted that the respondent’s intention was to forcibly stop the publication for the reason that his publication’s ideology was pro-national and pro-State affairs.

According to the complainant, he filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High

Court of J&K at Jammu and the Hon’ble Court passed the interim relief order in his favour on 8.7.2014 but the same was not implemented by the respondents and instead of providing the information through RTI, the respondents orally threatened him to close the publication otherwise he will face dire consequences along with family members. The complainant has further informed that due to life threats to life, he was compelled to leave the house and remained under ground several times and during this period of mental torture and harassment his publication suffered a setback and had lost its ground in the market thereby his social standing was badly affected. The complainant alleged that the respondents had stopped the advertisement to his Urdu edition without issuance of any show cause notice so that he could not publish the Urdu paper. The complainant submitted that he made complaint before the DM, Jammu and before the Director Information, Jammu for illegal act of the respondent-Joint Director Information, Jammu but no action was taken so far against him. The complainant alleged that his advertisements dues since 2008 had also not been released by the respondents despite several requests.

The complainant vide his further letter dated 4.3.2016 forwarded a copy of the

Order dated 18.2.2016 issued by the Director General, Directorate of Information, Govt. of J&K with regard to the Hon’ble High Court of J&K’s order dated 8.7.2014 in OWP No.958/2014. It was stated in the said order that as the complainant’s newspaper is not being published regularly, Joint Director Information, Jammu has been directed to review the case of the complainant with reference to the advertisement policy and give his views in the matter for consideration of the Empanelment Committee as and when it meets.

The complainant alleged that the interim order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of J&k in his favour for an early consideration within four weeks has not been complied with the respondents. The complainant denied the allegation that his newspaper was published regular.

Notices for Comments were issued to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir on 27.1.2016. Giving reference to the Council’s Notice, the Administrative Officer, Directorate of Information, Government of Jammu & Kashmir addressed a letter dated 3.2.2016 to the Joint Director Information, Jammu for filing the reply.

Report filed by the Joint Director, Information, Jammu

The Joint Director, Information, Jammu vide his letter dated 26.5.2016, while sending the factual report to the Director, Information, J&K, endorsed a copy of it to the Council. In the report, he stated that the title in question is empanelled for only Urdu language and the complainant has to pass through the laid down procedure for publication of Hindi/English editions even under the same Title. The regularity of all the newspapers including that of complainant newspaper’, Northern Times is maintained in the office and registered newspapers have to maintain a minimum of 85% attendance for maintaining their eligibility for receiving government advertisements. However, the complainant despite being aware of the fact time and again failed to comply with this

norm. He further stated that the concerned officers had repeatedly issued notices to the editor in this regard asking him to maintain the regularity of his newspaper. Since, the complainant failed to maintain the regularity of his newspaper for last few months his case was recommended for delisting by the Deputy Director, Information, Jammu. Despite the regularity issue, government advertisements to complainant’s newspaper, taking compassionate view, were not virtually stopped. He denied the allegations levelled by the complainant upon the department that he was being harassed and discriminated. With regard to other allegation of the complainant that he did not get advertisement for his other bilingual newspaper, Northern Times, the respondent submitted that the newspaper is not empanelled with the department and therefore advertisements cannot be issued to this newspaper. He further stated that the Director General, Information &PR ordered that Joint Director, Information will review the case of the complainant with reference to the advertisement policy and will give his views in the matter for consideration of the Empanelment Committee as and when it meets. The respondent also denied the allegation of threatening by the department. He stated that the complainant misbehaved with the officials of the advertisement section who brought this issue to the notice of the concerned in writing.

Complainant’s Further Letter

The complainant vide his further letter dated 4.6.2016, while reiterating his complaint, stated that the respondents have violated all rules and regulations without any fear and have also not complied the Hon’ble Court order and the orders of the Hon’ble Governer of State. He alleged that the respondents are criminal minded and are involved in certain other several cases.


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 9.6.2016 at New Delhi. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, Joint Director, Information appeared for the respondent. In this complaint, the complainant has raised many fold grievances, the first relates to non-empanelment of ‘The Northern Times’, a bilingual newspaper. It is the contention of the complainant that a direction was given by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to consider his claim for empanelment but the same has not yet been done. In answer thereto, the representative of the respondent states that the committee constituted to consider the cases of empanelment has been stayed by the High Court. Be that as it may be, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that in case the complainant has any grievance in regard thereto, he can approach the Hon’ble High Court for this purpose. The next grievance of the complainant is about non-payment of arrears of advertisements. The representative of the respondent assures the Committee that the outstanding amount in respect of the advertisements shall be paid within four weeks. The other grievance of the complainant is that the newspaper, ‘Northern Times’ (Urdu) which was empanelled ear

Press Council of India Index of Adjudications...

Documents

Transcript of Press Council of India Index of Adjudications...