PRESS RELEASE
PR/18/2009-10-PCI
Dated
4.3.2010
Press Council
Censures Rana Pratap and Lok Sewa, Ludhiana
The Press
Council which met at New Delhi on February 22, 2010 under the Chairmanship of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray censured Rana Pratap and Lok Sewa of
Ludhiana, Punjab; warned Andhra Bhoomi and Vaartha, Hyderabad and
Roznama Rashtriya Sahara, Noida; and cautioned Times of India and Metro
Now, New Delhi for violating the norms of journalistic conduct and misusing the
press freedom. The Press Council adjudicated 27 complaints against the press
and 13 complaints by the press against the authorities. Censuring the Editors,
Rana Pratap and Lok Sewa of Ludhiana in a complaint filed by Shri Surinder Pal
& Others, Advocates of Ludhiana for publication of unauthorized
advertisements and raising bogus bills by the respondent newspapers, the
Council observed that the respondents had in past also been brought before the
Council with similar charges of publication of unauthorized advertisements by
lifting them from another magazine and demanding payment for such
advertisements, and had failed to defend the same. The Council found that the
acts of the respondents were not only against the journalistic conduct but also
illegal. Furthermore, both the periodicals were not in conformity with Section
11 and Section 9(d) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867.
In a
complaint filed by the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Social
Welfare Department, Hyderabad the Council warned Andhra Bhoomi and Vaartha of
Hyderabad and their correspondents under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the
Press Council act, 1978 for violating of norms of journalistic conduct by
publishing name of the tribal girl student and thereby identifying her as one
subjected to forced abortion. Taking reference to the guidelines issued by it
and also the restraint mentioned by laws in identifying minor girl victim of
abuse, the Council condemned the action of the respondents as well as their
stringers for their carelessness and directed the respondent editors to publish
unqualified apology giving gist of the laps without mentioning the name of the
victim and to appropriately deal with disciplinary action against the erring
reporters. In another complaint filed against Rozanama Rashtriya Sahara, an
Urdu daily of Noida for publication of allegedly defamatory and baseless
advertisement (public notice) related to a property, the Council warned the
respondent newspaper for absence of due scrutiny in accepting the
advertisements and thereafter failing to take sufficient timely remedial steps.
In
two different complaints filed against the Times of India and Metro Now, New Delhi
for alleged negative portrayal of women by publishing nude/scantily clad women,
the Council cautioned the respondents for publishing photographs that go
against the generally accepted standards of morality in the Indian context. The
Council felt that the Times of India did not act carefully in selecting for
publication photographs that were intended for an adult magazine and thus a
totally different readership. The Council agreed that in a fast moving world,
the social outlooks also cannot remain static but every social entity is guided
by some core tenets and values, which keep the people rooted. It advised the
newspapers to self regulate in observing necessary restraint.