|
|
|
|
Shri Kalu Ram Arya of Indragarh in his complaint to the Council alleged that the editor of ‘Kota Bureau’ published a false and defamatory news item against his daughter and when he refused to pay Rs.5000/- to the respondent as demanded the latter repeated the said impugned item in the next issue of the paper. The Council did not accept the defence of the respondent that particulars of the girl were not given in the news items. It noted that particulars of the complainant and his wife were given and Kota being a small town, any reader could easily identify the girl. According to the Council the news reports had the tendency to affect the reputation of the family, particularly the concerned girl. It observed that the press should realize its responsibility to the society due to its unique position by being able to command directly with the citizenary and utilise its advantageous position for the betterment of the society and the advancement of the country rather than indulging in giving credence to rumours. Further, it is also necessary that the press, particularly the small local press learn to appreciate the clear distinction between matters of “public interest” and “those in public interest”. In the opinion of the Council the impugned news reports were published recklessly solely with the motive to blackmail the complainant. While upholding the complaint, the Council observed that the complainant can file a suit for defamation, if he so desires. Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, former Chief Minister of Assam in his complaint to the Council alleged that Ajir Batori published an unverified, false, misleading and defamatory news item. It was reported that the complainant was involved in secret killings and that he discussed the settlement of militant problem through secret killings. In the absence of any written or oral submission, the Council noted that the impugned report contained serious allegations touching national interest of creating violence and secret killings in the State against the complainant and based apparently on a report which was still a confidential document and the respondent had failed to file any statement to show that the report was correct and bonafide and had some basis. The Council, therefore, decided to uphold the complaint. |
|
|
|