Sl. No.                                                       F. No.13/240/02-03PCI

Shri Lalji Bharmar,   
Editor-in -charge,
RASHTHRIYA CHINHA,
Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh                                                        

Versus        

 1. The Secretary,
 Home (Police) Dept.

2.  Police Superintendent
Gorakhpur, U.P.

Complaint

          This complaint-dated 28.12.2002 was filed by Shri Lalji Bharmar, Editor in-charge, Rashtriya Chinha, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh against the Police authorities, Gorakhpur and Government of Uttar Pradesh for alleged withdrawal of the security guards provided to him following publication of critical news items.

          The complainant submitted that in keeping with the Press Council’s adjudication-dated 20.11.1997 directing the Police administration to provid him security guard, the directions had been complied with.  However, due to the publication of recent news articles exposing the corruption rampant in the police department, the security personnel provided to him were withdrawn on 27.12.2002 and his life has been endangered since then.

          The complainant submitted that he had written to the State Government in this regard but to no avail.

No Comments

          Comments of the respondents Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh were invited on 23.4.2003.  No comments were received from either of the respondents in the matter till the date of oral hearing.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

          The matter came for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2005. Shri Ganesh Dutt Tiwari represented the complainant while Shri Gorakh Nath, Station House Officer appeared on behalf of the respondent police authorities on 30.3.2005.

           The representative of the police authorities who appeared on 30.3.2005 filed the written submissions. The Govt. had stated that a case had been filed against the nephew of the complainant and his role had also been ascertained in the same. Just to escape that case, a case had been filed by him in the Press Council. He added that there was no danger to the life of the complainant.

           Earlier on the day of hearing i.e. 29.3.2005 the complainant reiterated the submissions made in his complaint. He, however, submitted that after the security was removed in 2002 as he had reduced writing against the police officers.  His life was saved but he was still getting threats and his life was in danger. He requested that police commissioner may be directed to provide him security for whole life.

 Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

          The Inquiry Committee heard the parties and perused the record. It noted that the security had been provided to the complainant in the late nineties on the direction of the Council.  It was withdrawn in the year 2002. The Committee noted that the complainant was safe and he could not be expected to be provided personal security for life.  However as the complainant apprehended danger to his life, the Committee directed the police authorities to inquire and ascertain  whether the life of the complainant was in danger due to critical writings in his newspaper. If so, his safety may be ensured so as to enable him to perform his journalistic duties freely and fearlessly. The Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur should report to the Press Council the action taken in the matter.  The Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the above directions to the police authorities.

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.