S.No.                                                           F.No.14/67/03-04-PCI

M/s. Bibaha  Bandhani,                                      
Marriage Bureau & Registration Office,
Kolkata.                                  

Versus

The Editor
ananda bazar patrika,
Kolkata, West Bengal

Complaint

          This complaint, dated 30.5.2003 has been filed by M/s. Bibaha Bandhani, Marriage Bureau & Marriage Registration Office, Kolkata against “Ananda Bazar Patrika”, Kolkata for non-publication of a classified advertisement that had been booked for 1.9.2002 issue of the paper.

          Facts of the case are that the complainant had given an advertisement to the respondent newspaper for publication on 1.9.2002 in the morning edition in ‘Patri Chai’ (Brides wanted) column along with a payment of Rs.315/- as advance payment towards charges for the publication. In spite of the receipt of the said text along with payments the respondent did not publish any advertisement on specified date.  Thereafter the respondent refused to publish the complainant’s advertisement on the plea that it would hamper the newspaper’s business interest as the complainant is carrying on marriage negotiation business, and their reader’s response to advts. inserted by marriage bureau’s had been negative, alleged the complainant and added that the act of refusal to publish his advertisement amounts to unfair trade practice and is against the journalistic ethics as several other similar advts. were being published. 

          The complainant in the meanwhile filed a writ petition No.20117 (W) of 2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata and the Council dropped further proceedings in the matter on 24.3.2004 as the matter had become sub-judice. The Hon’ble High court passed an Order dated 15.4.2004 in the writ petition NO.20117 (w) of 2003 that reads: -

           “This is a writ application, inter alia, complaining that Ananda Bazar Patrika is not inserting the advertisement of the writ petitioner. This writ petition against Ananda Bazar Patrika is not maintainable. I am informed that already the writ petitioner approached the Press Council of India. I therefore, dispose of this writ application by directing the Press Council of India to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

          I, however, make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the claim and the counter claim of the parties and all questions are left open to be adjudicated by the Press Council of India strictly in accordance with law.

          There will, however, be no order as to costs”

The complainant, vide letter dated 1.12.2004, in view of the High Court Order, requested the Council to proceed further in his complaint, of 30.5.2003. The complaint was thus reopened on 31.1.2005.

 written statement

          Show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 9.2.2005. The Secretary and Head of Legal Department, Anand Bazar Patrika in his written statement dated 24.4.2005 has submitted that it is the prerogative of a Company to decide its business policy and as such the act of the advertiser compelling them to accept their advertisement is uncalled for and unwarranted.  The respondent has submitted that the issue of non-publication of advertisement released by marriage bureau was a business decision prompted by the views of the readers of the daily who are not very comfortable replying to marriage bureaus unless their identity is disclosed.  Hence no advertisements released by the marriage bureaus were carried in Anand Bazar Patrika.  The respondent has submitted that, however, since February 22, 2004, without prejudice, they are accepting advertisement from marriage bureaus provided they are published under the head “Bibaha Pratisthan”.  The advertisements pertaining to marriage bureaus are presently being carried in Anand Bazar Patrika.  The respondent has submitted that they do not, however, accept advertisements from marriage bureaus unless it is clearly stated in the advertisement that the advertisement is published by a marriage bureaus.  The respondent has submitted that since the advertisement policy or any other business policy of a company depends on the decision arrived at from time to time, they cannot commit that they shall continue to carry the advertisement of the marriage bureau.  Such decisions are business decisions, which depend on the policy and guidelines framed by the Company considering the view of the readers, competition in the market, policy of the competitors etc. from time to time.  The respondent has submitted that such decisions and policies cannot be interpreted as discrimination.  Business policy of a concern is an internal issue and no advertiser can dictate his terms and conditions vis-à-vis their policy.  The respondent has submitted that they strongly condemn such act of the complainant and appeal to the Press Council of India to forthwith dismiss the complaint for being unconstitutional and without basis.

          A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant for his information on 10.5.2005.

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

          The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Kolkata on 26.5.2005. Shri Kalyan Chatterjee appeared on behalf of the complainant Bibaha Bandhani while Ms. Savithri Parekh, Secretary and Head of Legal Department represented the respondent newspaper, Ananda Bazar Patrika.

Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee

          The representative of the complainant submitted that ABP had a counter to accept advts. They had given an advertisement for publication on 1.9.2002 to the paper with due payment but the same was not carried. This act of the respondent was unethical.  He also contended that the paper’s freedom to select material/advt. was not absolute and the paper could not deny them the opportunity to advertise their business.

          The respondent’s representative contended that as a matter of policy of the company, the matrimonial advertisements released by marriage bureaus were not being published at that time as their readers response was not very encouraging.  The paper was similarly refusing the ‘chat line’ advts. The complainant had also filed two cases in the Consumer Forum Court of which one was dismissed and the other withdrawn and payment Rs. 315/- was returned to the complainant. She further stated that since February 2004, however, they have started accepting advertisements from marriage bureaus provided they are published under the head “Bibaha Pratisthan’ and is from the genuine marriage bureaus.  The advt. earlier given by the Bureau was so worded that it was likely to mislead the readers into believing that they were corresponding directly with the party.  Therefore, the complainant had been informed that their advt. would not be published. 

          The complainant requested that the directions may be issued to the respondent to publish their advertisements.  He was unable to give any satisfactory reply to committee about the alleged subterfuge in trying to pass off the Bureau’s advt. as a direct party advt.

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

          On considerations of the record and oral submissions advanced before it by the parties, the Committee observed that as matter of policy the Anand Bazar Patrika had not been publishing advertisements of Bureau’s providing matrimonial alliance services and it was within the authority management to take policy decisions guided by the preferences and responses of its readers and the complainant could not claim any absolute right to have his advt. published.  Now Anand Bazar Patrika has, however, started accepting such advertisements published and placed distinctly from the advt. of direct party advt. and the complainant had also been advertising its sources in the paper. The pre-scrutiny of advertisement and rejection of advertisments like ‘chat line’ advertisment was infact worthy of appreciation.   Therefore, the Committee recommended to the Council that no further action/direction was necessary in the matter.  However, before parting with the case the Committee would like to refer to the issued by the Press Council to the newspapers to publish the following caution notice along with their matrimonial advt. column in public interest.

Caution : “Readers are advised to make appropriate thorough inquiries before acting upon any advertisement.  This newspaper does not vouch or subscribe to claim and representation made by the advertiser regarding the particulars of status, age, income of the bride/bridegroom”.

“While choosing the life partner, one may also undertake health screening to prevent any genetic disorder in any future off spring”.   

The Committee hopes that the media in larger public interest and as a responsible instrument of change in social attitudes would ensure the publication of the above caution notice in every issue carrying advertising inviting matrimonial alliances.  It recommended to the Council to dispose of the matter in the above terms. 

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.