Sl. No. F.No. 14/774/02-03-PCI

Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal,
Puri,
Champaran (Bihar)

Versus.

The Editor,
Hindustan,
Muzaffarpur Champaran edition,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

Complaint

Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal of Puri, Champaran District filed this undated complaint (received in the Secretariat on 17.3.2003) against “Hindustan”, Hindi Daily, Champaran edition for publishing allegedly misleading, baseless and defamatory news item captioned “ vÉÉäbÉºÉcxÉ ={É-bÉBÉEvÉ® BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É´ÉÉn MÉc®ÉªÉÉ (Dispute at Ghodasahan sub-post office deepens) in the issue dated 12.11.2002.

The complainant submitted that being a social worker he had always raised voice against the injustice perpetrated on the people. The complainant alleged that in order to protect Shri Ram Babu Prasad, Savings Assistant working in the local post office and to influence the high level enquiry being conducted against him, the respondent journalist of Dainik Hindustan Shri Asit Kumar Tiwari published the impugned news item. It was alleged in the impugned report that the complainant and his father were selfish and antisocial elements. They exerted pressure on the officials to get their work done by making misleading complaints. It was further stated in the impugned publication that Shri Vaidhyanath Prasad Jaiswal, agent of the National Saving Certificate tried to pressurise the postal staff for his vested interest. His son Shri Sanjeev Kumar along with his supporters was trying to defame the staff of the postal authorities by levelling false allegations against them.

Denying the allegations, the complainant submitted that the one sided and unverified impugned news item was published deliberately to defame him and his father. The complainant submitted that he sent a letter/legal notice dated 9.12.2002 to the respondent editor with the request to publish the contradiction and punish the concerned correspondent but no reply was received.

Comments

Comments of the respondent-editor, Hindustan, Hindi daily, Muzaffarpur (Bihar) were invited on 30.6.2003. The General Manager and Company Secretary submitted on behalf of the respondent Hindustan that the news item was published in the 12^th November, 2002 issue only with a view to bring to the notice of the readers that a number of persons had written the District Magistrate, Mothihari, East Champaran indicating that the Assistant in the local Post Office had been falsely implicated by Shri Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal (father of the complainant) and that the District Magistrate should conduct an independent and expeditious inquiry in the matter and a bare perusal of the news item would indicate that the only purpose of carrying the news report was to bring this fact to the notice of the readers of that area. In view thereof it could be said that the impugned report was without any basis, or was a cooked up story or that it had been published with intent to harm the reputation of the complainant Sanjeev Jaiswal or his father Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal. On the contrary, the present complaint reflected a desire by the complainant not to let the public know that a sufficiently significant number of persons have another point of view in the matter and the readers of the newspaper are entitled to know about it, added the respondent.Denying that the news report had been published with a view to influence the inquiry, it was submitted by the respondent that the report clearly indicated that the representationists desired an independent and expeditious disposal of the inquiry against the officer involved. According to him the newspaper did not commit any mistake when the fact of such representation having been made was published as a news report. Insofar as the allegation regarding non-publication of the complaint made by Baijnath Prasad Jaisawal was concerned, the respondent submitted that the substance of the complaint made by Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal was published on 8/9^th November, 2002 issue of the paper in the news column ‘Mothihari Dateline’ under the caption ‘Hindustan Representative’ in coloured version which also referred to the complaint made by Shri Jaiswal.

The respondent further informed that the complainant threatened the concerned representative of the Daily, Shri Asit Kumar Tiwari, with a number of legal notices. Giving background of the case it was submitted that the complainant’s mother had contested in the elections for the Panchayat in the previous year when the complainant had exerted undue pressure on the newspaper to publish favourable news in support of his mother and since the paper did not toe his line; the complainant bore a grudge against the respondent.

He concluded by submitting that the impugned report was based on the material made available to the newspaper office, the genuineness of which was indisputable and the report was made without any malice, or any intention to cause harm to the complainant or his reputation.

A copy of the comments was forwarded to the complainant on 16.2.2005.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was posted for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 29.3.2005. The complainant appeared in person while Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate represented the Hindustan Times.

The complainant submitted that the news report had been published to favour a postal department employee one Shri Ram Babu Prasad. His and his father’s name had been unnecessary mentioned in the news and then their denial had not been printed.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the news was published in ‘Dainik Hindustan’ on 12 November 2002 only with a view to bring to the notice of the readers of the daily newspaper that a number of persons had written to the District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran indicating therein that the Assistant in the local Post Office had been falsely implicated by Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal (father of the complainant) and that the District Magistrate should conduct an independent and expeditious inquiry in the matter. The newspaper report did not in any manner express any opinion. The news was not published with intent to harm the reputation of the complainant Sanjeev Jaiswal or his father Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal. In so far as the allegation regarding non-publication of the complaint made by Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal was concerned, the substance of the complaint made by Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal was published on 8/9^th November 2002 in the very same newspaper i.e. Dainik Hindustan in the news column ‘Motihari Dateline’ under the caption ‘Hindustan Representative in coloured version. The present news report also refers to the complaint made by Shri Jaiswal. The newspaper had no malafide intention or ill will in publishing the impugned news report.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The committee has heard the parties. After considering the record and submissions of the parties the Committee held that the complainant’s case was that his and his father’s name had been unnecessarily mentioned in the news report. The respondent’s counsel had contended that they had no malice or motive in publishing the impugned news report and were only guided by public

interest. The learned counsel for the respondent had, however, agreed to the Committee’s suggestion to publish a corrigendum giving reference to the impugned publication stating that they had no intention to malign or harm the reputation of the complainant or his father and leave it to the reader to form a view in the matter. The Committee was of the opinion that with the publication of the said corrigendum the grievance of the complainant would be fully vindicated. Therefore, the Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint with the directions to the respondent to carry out the assurance given by its counsel before the Inquiry Committee.

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.