S.No.                                                                          F.No.13/16/04-05-PCI.

Ch. Amar Singh Johari,
Editor,
Akhiri Koshish, Hindi daily,
Panipat (Haryana).                      

 Versus       

1. Director,  
Information & Public Relations
Department, Govt. of Haryana,
 Chandigarh.
 
2. Chief Electoral Officer,
Haryana,
Chandigarh.

3.Deputy Commissioner and
District Electoral Officer,
Panipat (Haryana).
 

Complaint

            Ch. Amar Singh Johari, Editor, Akhiri Koshish, Hindi daily of Panipat (Haryana) has filed this complaint dated 24.4.2004 against the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana/ Chandigarh alleging hurdles in dissemination of news to the newspapers, discrimination between big and small newspapers in the matter of providing information and denial of issuance of photo identity card to small newspapers.  He has contended that due to this discrimination he was unable to perform his journalistic duties.

            The complainant vide his letter dated 27.5.2004 submitted that during the Lok Sabha elections 2004, the District Public Relation Officer, Panipat recommended issue  of photo identity card to him but the respondent-Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana misusing his position followed discriminatory policy and did not issue him the photo identity card and thereby created hurdle in collection and dissemination of news by adopting biased attitude.  Referring to an earlier complaint the complainant alleged that the respondent had totally ignored the Council’s directions that Government authorities ought to exhibit a judicious approach towards small and medium newspapers, which cater to local populace and any obstruction to journalists by denial of access of information tantamount to curtailment of the freedom of press. 

            Since passes are issued by the Chief Electoral Officer on the recommendation of the State Information and Public Relations Officer, comments of the Information & Public Relations Department, Haryana, District Electoral Officer, Panipat and the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana were invited in the matter.  

Comments-Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana

            The Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana in his comments dated 21.7.2004 denied the allegations made in the complaint that the District Public Relations Officer, Panipat had recommended the names of media persons who were close/known to him, through the District Electoral Officer, Panipat.  The respondent informed that the authority letters were issued on the recommendations of Director, Public Relation Department after getting approval from the Election Commission of India and the name of Ch. Amar Singh Johari was not mentioned in the list recommended by the Director, Public Relations Department.  No irregularities were committed while issuing the authority letters.  Moreover, nothing specific was disclosed in the complaint made by Ch. Johari regarding wrong recommendations.

            Regarding the complainant’s claim that his name was included at S.No.21 of the list issued by the District Public Relations Officer, Panipat, the respondent stated that the such recommendation made by District Public Relations officer are not received in his office directly.  Hence it was received by the in Election Department. Therefore the complainant’s contention appeared to be wrong. 

Comments-Dy. Commissioner & Distt. Electoral Officer, Panipat

            The Deputy Commissioner & District Electoral Officer, Panipat vide his letter dated 23.7.2004 informed that the complainant was directed vide letter dated 16.7.2004 to present in his office on 19.7.2004 at 9:30 a.m. but he did not turn up despite issuance of reminder dated 20.2.2004. Later on the complainant visited his office on 20.7.2004 and stated on an affidavit that he had no complaint relating to his office and his grievance was only against the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana/Chandigarh.  The respondent also filed a copy of the complainant’s statement.

Counter Comments

            The complainant in his counter comments dated 19.8.2004, 30.9.2004, 31.10.2004 and 31.12.2004 while reiterating his allegation submitted that the District Public Relations Officer, Panipat continued to adopt biased attitude towards some journalists.  He requested the Council to direct the respondent to ensure judicious approach towards small and medium newspapers.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

            The matter was called out for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 27.4.2005. S/Shri Pale Ram, Deputy Director, Surender Khatkar, Assistant District Attorney and Mohender Kumar, Assistant represented the respondent authorities while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.

Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee

            Shri Khatkar, appearing for the respondent authorities stated that passes during elections were issued on the recommendation of the District Public Relations Officers. In the list sent by concerned Department of Information and Public Relations the name of the complainant was not there. So the pass was not issued to him. He added that the complainant was habitual of making frivolous complaints.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

            The Inquiry Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments put forth before it by the District Attorney of the State. It observed that the passes were issued by the Electrol Officer during elections on the recommendations of  DPRO. The District Public Relations Officer did not recommend the name of the complainant. The Committee, therefore, did not find fault with the Electrol Officer in not issuing the pass to the complainant during election. The Committee, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint.

Decision of the Council

            The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.