Shri Susil Ranjan Choudhuri,
General Secretary,
Tripura State Council for Child Welfare,
(Tripura). Agartala – (Tripura).

Versus

The Editor,
Sambad,
Agartala

Complaint:

Shri Susil Ranjan Choudhuri, General Secretary, Tripura State Council for Child Welfare, Agartala has filed this complaint dated 10.11.01 against Dainik Sambad, a Bengali daily of Agartala (Tripura) for publication of an allegedly false, baseless, twisted and motivated news item captioned “Child Adoption or Smuggling? The Child of the State is in America in exchange for huge amount of money” in the issue dated 7.11.2001.
 
The impugned news item highlighted that the complainant’s organisation was involved in smuggling of girl child under the cover of adoption. It was alleged in impugned news item that the complainant’s organisation (the only private organisation for promoting inter-country adoption) was involved in smuggling of a girl child in the name of adoption. The organisation from its very inception had been continuously going on neglecting the law. It was further stated in the impugned news item that though there was no reliable documents to ……. child smuggling in the name of adoption, from the circumstantial evidence arose the suspicion at different levels that a girl child was smuggled to America in exchange of huge amount of money.
The complainant alleged that the very caption of the news was deadly and damaging. According to him an organisation that had earned a very good name and reputation from all corners had been deliberately blamed. The complainant categorically denied the allegations and submitted that the false news item had been published despite the reporter having talked to the complainant over telephone for 30 minutes on the issue. The complainant had formally told him that all these allegations were baseless and false; yet the reporter of ‘Dainik Smabad’ went ahead and published the damaging and defamatory news item without caring for his refutations thereby tarnishing the image of complainant’s organisation.

The complainant had on the same day i.e. 7.11.2001 sent a protest letter to the editor with a request to publish it in its 8.11.2001 issue. The same was however, not published by Dainik Sambad though ‘Desher Katha; another daily published it in the 9.11.2001 issue of its paper.
The complainant submitted that a press conference was held on 9.11.2001 in which all the four Bengali newspapers of Tripura were invited. All authentic documents including guidelines of the central adoption resources agency were handed over to the reporters of these newspapers. A few adoptive parents, who were present in the conference also spoke and objected to the report in Dainik Sambad as false and baseless. They affirmed that the organization had been rendering benevolent services for the rehabilitation of the uprooted children by means of promoting intra-country adoption. Even after the official clarification, Dainik Sambad did not publish any thing. However the other three papers focused on the press conference. The complainant requested the Council to take necessary action against the respondent for publishing the distorting facts.

Written statement

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent editor Dainik Sambad on 30.4.2002. The respondent editor in his written statement 8.7.2002 submitted that the news item in question was published in the interest of public and by publishing it the journalistic ethics and professional standards were strictly adhered to and maintained.

The respondent denied the allegation that the said news item was ill motivated or had damaged the reputation of the complainant. According to the respondent no comments were made in the news item by the newspaper. Only focus was in regard to genuine suspicion nursed by different sections of the people of the state in connection with the adoption programme pursued by TSCFCW and version of the latter was also obtained and his statement refuting the allegation was duly reported in the news item. The respondent stated that the news item was a balanced one and the views of the both sides were duly reflected in it. He averred that since the views of the complainant organization had already been concerned in the impugned report, there was no need for publication of further rejoinder or coverage of the press conference.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.7.2002 for information/counter comments, if any.

Counter comments

In his counter reply dated 19.8.2002 the complainant submitted that the version of the respondent was baseless and bogus and it had infact misled the public in the name of public interest and thus violated the ethics and professional standards of journalism. According to the complainant the caption to the impugned news item clearly showed that it was created by the respondent at its own whims only to defame the TSCFCW before general public with an ulterior motive.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent on 11.9.2002 for information.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Guwahati on 9.10.2002. The complainant, Shri Susil Ranjan Choudhuri appeared in person while S/Shri A.K. Bhowmik, Senior Advocate, Sekhar Dutta, advocate and Pradip Dutta Bhowmik, publisher represented the respondent editor, Sambad.

Submissions before the Inquiry Committee

Reiterating what had been submitted in the complaint, the complainant added that the organisation persued different schemes for the welfare of the children. It held the licence from the State Government as well as the Central Government and was affiliated to the Council for Child Welfare. The Centre was allowed to give children for adoption in India and also to the Indian citizens who have settled abroad after completing all the formalities. Yet the Sambad published a very damaging news report with a sensational hadline levelling allegations which were baseless and false. The complainant contended that the reporter who had filed the story talked to him on phone prior to publication and was told that all the allegations were false. Despite this the report was published after the publication of the impugned news report, he talked to the editor and requested him to publish the clarification. When he did not publish the clarification, a press conference was called by the complainant and due clarification was given supported by all documents and evidence. All the newspapers, except the Sambad carried the clarification.

Learned counsel for the respondent newspaper argued that the contents of the news report were true. It was a balanced reporting having the views of the complainant organisation also and was published after verifying the facts. The heading, he stated, carried a question mark. As regards non-publication of the clarification of the clarification of the complainant he argued that the editor had gone into the clarification and did not find any substance in it as there was no denial of the allegations mentioned in the news report.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

The Committee carefully considered the material on record and the oral submissions advanced before it by the parties. The Committee noted that the impugned news item touched a very important and valuable issue. It was a matter of public importance and the report was a balanced one as the version of the complainant was also incorporated in it. However, the Committee opined that as a requisite of fair journalism, the respondent should have published the protest of the complainant carried by other papers the Deshar Katha on 9th November 2001. The Committee thus directed the respondent newspaper, through its representative accordingly. It further directed the respondent to forward a copy of the issue of the newspaper carrying the protest of the complainant, the Press Council of India as well as the complainant for record. It recommends to the Council accordingly.

Decision of the Council

The Council on consideration of the records of the case and the reports of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and decides accordingly.