S.No. F.No.14/653/03-04-PCI
Shri P.K.Sengupta,
Secretary
Justice Mukherjee Commission,
Kolkata, West Bengal.
Versus
Editor,
“Ananda Bazar Patrika”,
Kolkata.
Complaint
This complaint, dated 9.3.2004 has been filed by Shri P. K. Sengupta, Secretary, Justice Mukherjee Commission for Inquiry, Kolkata against the Ananda Bazar Patrika alleging publication of misstatement, misquotes and distortion of facts in a news report captioned ‘Netaji Commission will make a request to the Centre of the Markein Army for DNA test’ in its issue dated 21.12.2003. The English rendering of the offending portion of the penultimate para of the report is reproduced below: -
“The Commission wants to commence the work of the DNA test in the current year. On DNA test of the used articles of ‘Gumnami Baba’ of Faizabad of Uttar Pradesh, proclaimed as Netaji, the Commission did not get any correspondence with Subash Chandra Bose. That Gumnami Baba is by no means Netaji has been proved”
According to the complainant-Commission, this sort of irresponsible report causes prejudice to the progress of the inquiry since the report of the DNA test being confidential has not been disclosed to anybody. Thus the content of the impugned report were contrary to facts and speculative in nature. The complainant-Commission vide letter dated 24.12.2003 requested the respondent reporter to explain the basis on which the offending comment on Gumnami Baba in the impugned news report was made. The newspaper in its reply dated 29.12.2003 claimed that it was learnt from some source of the Commission that the DNA test of Gumnami Baba was completed and nothing reliable regarding Subash Chandra Bose could be found. The complainant alleged that the reply was more offending and another letter dated 29.12.2003 was issued asking the respondent to publish a corrigendum. But there is no response from respondent Ananda Bazar Patrika.
Show Cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata on 2.7.2004.
Written Statement
The respondent, Secretary and Head of Legal Department, Ananda Bazar Patrika filed the written statement dated 17.7.2004 and submitted that they were not clear as to what exactly was found objectionable by the complainant in the impugned news item. The complainant nowhere spelt out what is misstatement and distortion of facts. The respondent stated that Gumnami Baba’s DNA report was made public at Mukherjee Commission’s hearing on June 23, 2004 where the Commission’s Chairman, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Mukherjee unveiled DNA report pointing out that Gumnami Baba and Netaji are two different persons and there is no match between the two. The content of the news item and the report which was made public on 23.6.2004 appeared to be identical . The news item was based on information and records and had been published in good faith after taking due care and reasonable caution. The respondent offered to publish the complainant’s point of view in the interest of freedom of expression.
A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 11.8.2004.
Counter Comment
The complainant-Commission filed counter comment dated 26.8.2004 and submitted that the written statement of the respondent evaded the main issue. The offending character of the impugned news item dated 21.12.2003 did not by any stretch of imagination, nullified or mitigated the subsequent public disclosure of the DNA report on 23.6.2004. The news item had appeared when the report on the DNA test was a closely guarded secret and nobody was expected to know what the report was stated the complainant. The news item was, therefore, not only speculative in nature but also factually incorrect. The complainant further submitted that publication of the news item in question not only amounted to undue interference with the due course of the proceedings of the inquiry but also sent a wrong signal about the functioning of the Commission.
A copy of the counter comment was forwarded to the respondent on 22.9.2004 for information.
Appearance before the Inquiry Committee
The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Kolkata on 26.5.2005 Ms. Savithri Parekh, Secretary and Head of Legal Department, appeared for the respondent newspaper Anand Bazar Patrika. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant.
Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee
The representative of the respondent newspaper contended that the issue on which the commission was working was close to hearing of the public. The information they received from their source was a scoop in journalistic parlance and they were satisfied about its genuineness. Thus its publication was correct. The information was substantiated by the official reports subsequently issued. It was also submitted that the publication was bonafide. However, if the Commission feels that the report interfered with their work, the paper would like to clarify that they had no such intention.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments put forth by the representative of the respondent, the Anand Bazar Patrika. It also noted the absence of the complainants representative. On merits, the Committee noted that the impugned news report was based on information obtained by the respondent newspaper through their sources. The issue was of interest to the public and as established from the subsequent information released officially, was correct. To say that the press should not publish any information, till it is officially released would militate against the spirit of investigative journalism and even to an extent the purpose of journalism. The Committee, therefore did not find any action necessary against the Ananda Bazar Patrika for the impugned report and recommended to the Council to dispose off the matter 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.