Shri P. Balasubrahmanyam, IAS, Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirumala filed these complaints dated 24.8.2002 against two Telugu daily eveningers (i) Asthram, (ii) Varthamanam of Tirupati for publication of allegedly incorrect, false and defamatory news items captioned "What a Lila! Oh Lord of Seven Hills, Oh Lord! How Long This Holy Mask will continue" and "Balasubrahmanyam, The Agent of Chandra Babu" in their issues dated 18.7.2002 and 10.9.2002 respectively. It was alleged in the first impugned news item that the complainant had been continuing on deputation in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams for a long time and thus competing to be defacto presiding Deity. It was alleged that all that the complainant did during his eight years long tenure, was to keep allotment of computerized Arhitha Seva Ticketing System at his official residence. With the help of a few people the complainant had been issuing these tickets to industrialist, political heavy-weight, film actresses and producers and top officials; and arranged darshan for them. It was alleged in the second news item that the complainant, P. Balasubrahmanyam was acting as Chandra Babu Naidu's agent and unless he had bribed the Chief Minister, he could not have been allowed to continue as the Joint Executive Officer. Further due to this connection, some executive officers bowed to the complainant and some other executive officers got transferred. It was further alleged that the devotees complained that in the name of serving the devotees, the complainant took the sale of seva tickets under his control causing them hardship and income for himself.

Denying the allegations, the complainant stated that the respondents had published the impugned news items, that were totally false and baseless, without verifying the facts and thus indulged in yellow journalism. The complainant sent his denial to both the dailies but they did not publish the same.

Show Cause notice was issued to the respondents on 20.11.2002. The respondents did not file written statement.

The matters were taken up for hearing by the Inquiry Committee at Bangalore on 31.10.2003. Shri K.P. Shetty, advocate appeared for the complainant while Shri B.L.N. Prasad appeared for the respondent newspaper.

Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and asserted that the complainant had in his tenure taken steps to streamline the darshan procedure at the Devasthanam and this was done as per specific policy drawn up to provide better facilities to the pilgrims including the common man. The improvements made are with large and the actions were in public interest. He added that the clarification of the complainant was not published.

The representative of the respondent newspaper stated that they only wished to highlight the plight of the common man wanting the darshan of the presiding deity.

The Inquiry Committee considered the record and the oral submissions put forth before it by the parties. It noted that the news item contained serious allegations against the complainant of favouring the upper strata of the society by issuing them tickets for special darshan at Tirupati. The complainant had not denied that special darshan ticketing system had been introduced but averred that this was part of the improved management program at the Devasthanam and that the needs of common man had also been equally attended to. The respondent on the other hand failed to provide any proof of the malafide of the complainant. The Inquiry Committee, conscious of the sensitivity of the issue, believed that it was incumbent on newspapers to be especially vigilant when dealing with religious institutions. The Inquiry Committee did not see any public interest being served by the publication of the impugned news reports, on the contrary, it could give rise to unwarranted discontent among the public. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to warn the respondent newspapers, 'Asthram' and 'Varthamanam' for the impugned reports.

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