Shri M. Rajamani,
Managing Director,
Orissa Mining Corporation,
Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

Versus

The Editor,
Sambad, Bhubaneswar,
Dist.Khurda-(Orissa).

Complaint

This complaint dated 20.4.2001 was filed by Shri M. Rajamani, Managing Director, Orissa Mining Corporation, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) and former Vice Chairman of Bhubaneshwar Development Authority (BDA) through his counsel against “Sambad”, an Oriya Daily of Bhubaneswar (Orissa) for publication of a series of news items under the captioned “Illegal Construction, Landscam – Leading role of Jayanti Deb and Rajamani” in their issues dated March 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 28th, 2001. The first and the second impugned news items listed six buildings in which rules had been violated by the BDA. In the Rajendra Vihar Complex Project, BDA allegedly violated 13 Regulations and Dr. Panda, Secretary, H & UD Deparment had found the then Chairman-Minister Bhupinder Singh, Vice-Chairman M. Rajamani and Member Planning C.J. Misra responsible. BJB Nagar Building Project was approved through misuse of power for which Vice-Chairman Rajamani and Planning Member were held responsible. Raymond Show-Room Project was first approved only on 26.11.1993 but construction was carried on illegally and the then Vice Chairman and Member Planning A. Ali of BDA closed their eyes. Apart from illegal construction, M. Rajamani had directly instigated the owner to grab Government land for parking. In the matter of

Krishna Tower, M. Rajamani and Planning Member arranged to give illegal approval to their “C” Block. In the matter of Park Tower Project, M. Rajamani former Vice Chairman of BDA and Member Planning N.K. Das instead of stopping this Project imposed a fine of Rs.13,000/- as penalty on the Builder. In another case where there was no drainage facility in Metro Mansion Project, former Minister and Chairman of BDA and Vice Chairman of BDA M. Rajamani granted permission to this Project.

The report of 23.3.01 reported that according to the clarification given by Minister for Urban Development, Secretary, Urban Development would take action against the corrupt practices of BDA. It charged that Shri M. Rajamani Vice-Chairman of BDA had manipulated to regularize the irregularities of his predecessor and now his own successor was trying to regularise the irregularities committed by his predecessor.
The complainant stated that after the publication of the reports between 21-23rd March 2001 he had issued a notice through his counsel to the respondent on 7.4.2001 calling upon him to tender an unqualified apology and also to publish the same in the newspaper. However, the respondent neither tendered any apology nor responded. On the other hand, another news item was published in respondent-newspaper on 12.4.2001 under the caption “Rajamani threatens to proceed against Sambad” in which it was stated that M. Rajamani, former Vice-Chairman of BDA has threatened through a lawyer’s notice to proceed against “Sambad” in connection with publication of news regarding illegal constructions and corrupt practices in BDA. The complainant submitted that the news items were published with the sole intention to tarnish his image and to expose him to public ridicule.

Written Statement

Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-Editor, Sambad, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) on 15.6.2001.

In his written statement dated 2.8.2001, the Editor, Sambad denied all allegations, stated that the news items in question were published in public interest. According to the respondent the crux of the impugned news item dated 21.3.2001 was the circumstances leading to the transfer of Dr. Hrusikesh Panda, the then Secretary to Government in the administrative department. As his inspection into the affairs of BDA on 12.6.2000 could lead to rolling of many heads he was eased out by vested interests. The respondent submitted that reacting to the published report the concerned Minister had informed the press that stringent measures would be taken against erring officials. Since he did not contradict his version or the material facts, the authenticity of the impugned news items by the complainant stood vicariously vindicated. The respondent further submitted that the impugned news items had not singled out Rajamani but also mentioned other vice-chairmen posted in the department so the complainant should not have any reason to plead animus.

The respondent submitted that the newspaper is well aware of standards of Journalistic Conduct as laid down by the Press Council of India. In this case after publication of the impugned news items in question, the complainant had neither filed any rejoinder nor registered his protest in any other manner with the Editor. After a lapse of clear 15 days, an advocate’s notice was received which did not challenge the accuracy of the news items. Instead the Editor was directed by the advocate to tender unqualified apology for such publication. However, treating the advocate’s notice as a protest he had promptly published it after due editing on 13.4.2001 under the caption “Rajamani threatens legal action against Sambad – I alone am not responsible for BDA decision”, in terms of Norm of 23 of Journalistic Conduct. The respondent submitted that the complainant had not challenged the findings contained in the Inspection Report and as such he is presumed to have conceded to the report and its analysis. The respondent stated that each impugned news item being only a reflection of the inspection report submitted to the Government, the plea of malafide is not available to the complainant. The respondent stated that the complaint in question is liable to be quashed as misconceived, arrogant and untenable.

A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 3.9.2001 for information.

Appearance before the Committee

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Bhubaneswar on October 28, 2002. Shri M R. Mohanty, counsel for the complainant and Shri C.K. Mohanty, counsel for the respondent editor Sambad appeared before it.
 
Submission before the Committee:

Shri M R Mohanty submitted in his oral arguments that the series of reports published by the respondent paper Sambad were motivated and malafide and aimed at tearing apart the reputation of the complainant. It had placed reliance on the Pande Report to hit out at the complainant and in this they had exceeded the points covered by Shri Panda. The Report nowhere alleged a land scam even though it did cite some irregularities. The complainant had been labelled inefficient and corrupt without any effort to find out what he had to say in this behalf. He contended that the Panda Report was not sacrosanct and by placing reliance on it, the repondent had only displayed a partisan attitude. Thereafter, the rejoinder sent by the complainant had been published in a truncated form.The Counsel for the respondent submitted before the Committee that the papers only motive behind the impugned publication was public interest. They held no brief for either the complainant or any other person and only wished to highlight the irregularities prevailing in the said department. The rejoinder sent by the complainant did not refute the apology from the paper. This had been published in the manner thought fit by the editor.

Recommendations of the Committee:

The Committee considered the matter on the basis of the material on record and the oral submissions made before it. At the outset the Committee noted that the impugned reports were primarily based on the inquiry conducted by the government itself. A report did exist and it did carry news value. The issues raised therein were of and in public interest. Being a public servant, the complainant’s acts and conduct in discharge of his public duties were open to public security. The paper was not expected to prove the report and it could proceed on a reasonable belief that the Report did have some basis and publish the information in public interest. However, it was expected of the paper to publish alongside the version of the complainant. This the paper did not try to obtain. The rejoinder published on 13.4.2001 also more or less attempted to place the complainant in the dock. Admittedly the lawyer’s notice did not carry a reply on facts to all the changes in the impugned report but the caption given to this report “Rajamani threatens legal action against Sambad – I alone am not repsonsible for BDA decisions” indicates a not very non partisan attitude. Thus the committee felt that it would be in fitness of things if the complainant gives a consolidated factual rejoinder to the paper which the paper should publish without mixing it with its own comments within two weeks thereof and file copies of the same with the Council and the complainant. It recommended to the Council to direct the parties accordingly.

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.