“Media trials are defined as certain regional or national news ‘events’ in which the criminal justice system is co-opted by the media as a source of high drama and entertainment”

– M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [1962 AIR 605]

No right guaranteed to the citizens of India, including fundamental freedoms granted by the Constitution of India, are absolute in nature. Press or media, considered the fourth pillar of democracy, derive rights from the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but the same are also subject to reasonable restriction. Through provisions and judicial precedents, these caveats have evolved over decades. Some guidelines have also been issued to ensure that the conduct of media channels and anchors remain responsible, neutral, unbiased and professional, meeting the Constitutional mandate. Conduct of television channels remains in the breach, however.

Public platforms, especially the commercial “mainstream” channels, have come under serious scrutiny by courts, especially in recent times, for running contentious shows, some amounting to outright media trials. Since these channels play a significant role in affecting the opinions of a wide populace, the courts have, time and again, defined their limits and emphasised upon the media entering the court’s arena by touching upon matters that are sub-judice or criminal in nature, running a parallel media trial.

There have been many judgements delivered by Constitutional Courts where they have laid down the caveats on freedom of speech and expression for the media. The Supreme Courts in the Harijai Singh and Anr [AIR1997SC73], a bench led by Justice Kuldip Singh had held that press freedom is neither total nor infinite.

“But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings.” (Para 10)

In this judgement the Supreme Court has also emphasised that media discussions on ongoing investigations and cases need to stay within responsible limits to ensure that a thorough investigation and an impartial trial of are conducted. As per the Court, when such media trials and coverage of cases cross the moral, ethical and legal line, and are televised only to generate a sensation and to draw profit out it, the same must be prohibited by law.

“It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression.” (Para 10)

In another case of Venkatesh @ Chandra and Anr vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1476-1477 of 2018], the Supreme Court of India bench of former Justices U.U. Lalit and P S Narasimha had briefly dealt with the issue of media trials while delivering a judgment on conviction on offense of dacoity. In the judgment, the bench had criticised the practice of prosecuting agency recording the entire statement of the accused rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that only that part of the statement should be covered that leads to discovery as such statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. 

In the same judgment, the court had emphasised that matters relation to crime, including what forms a conclusive piece of evidence, must be dealt by courts and not by media. According to the Court, holding any debates or discussions that touch upon matters that fall within the domain of Courts “amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice.”

“What has further aggravated the situation is the fact that said statements on DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency were played and published in a program named “Putta Mutta” by Udaya TV. Allowing said DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a program is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of Justice. All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice.” (Para 21)

While the aforementioned cases briefly touched upon the issue of media trials, they also touched upon the impact on the on minds of viewers and the harm that it causes in the administration of justice.

Finally, the issue of media trials was fully dealt with by the Bombay High Court in the case of Nilesh Navalakha and ors vs Union of India and ors. [PIL (ST) No. 92252 of 2020], wherein the bench led by the then Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta had considered Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against the media trials being run by certain TV channels in the name of “investigative journalism” and the role that electronic media played in derogation of characters of those being investigated by police and courts in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. The bench, also comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni, had admonished media houses of indulging in such a media trial while reiterating the role of statutory authorities under the Cable Television Networks Act and directed them to take necessary action in complaints received by them.

Nilesh Navalakha and ors vs Union of India and ors

Facts of the case:

On June 14, 2020, actor Sushant Singh Rajput was reported to have died an unnatural death in his house in Mumbai. Pursuant to the news of his death, various TV channels initiated intense discussion during prime time on the probable cause of death of the actor. Some of such channels, under the guise of “investigative journalism”, spread the message among its viewers that the Mumbai Police has been passing off a homicidal death as a suicidal death. On this premise, the news channel ran their parallel trial and a close acquaintance of the actor, who herself is an actress, was repeatedly accused of orchestrating Rajput’s death. Even as the Supreme Court of India, Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate and the Narcotics Control Bureau were investigating the multiple facets of the case, TV channels were indulging in their own separate trials and theories.

Issues highlighted and relief sought by the petitions filed:

The judgment dealt with four different petitions pertaining to media coverage by certain news channels on the suicide case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput which led to a media trial affecting the rights of the accused as well as maligning the reputation of Mumbai Police. The petitioners included individuals Prerna Arora, Asim Sarode, Nilesh Navalakha and others; Mahesh Narayan Singh (former IPS) and other retired civil servants as well as an NGO named In Pursuit of Justice.

In the petitions moved before the Supreme Court, the issue highlighted with reference to the SSR case was that some of the TV channels in their programmes displayed headlines which, in effect, taunt the actor for dying by suicide and raised question as to whether he was into consumption of drugs. The insensitivity of such TV channels was emphasised upon in the pleas filed, when the petitioners highlighted the headlines/questions that were displayed/posed knowing fully well that the same would/could never be rebutted by the individual to whom it is directed.

The court noted that all but one of the writ petitions raised common issues with regard to the role of the electronic media in reporting matters concerning investigation into the unnatural death of the actor, thus amounting to a ‘media trial’. In view of the same, the petitioners had alleged that the electronic media in derogation of their legitimate media rights were broadcasting irresponsible and unethical news programmes of a nature amounting to slander and also amounting to a direct interference in the course of investigation, as undertaken by the investigating agencies, of a highly prejudicial nature. The petitioners further contended that some of the television channels had televised interviews with material witnesses and even indulged in cross-examining witnesses.

It was mainly asserted by the petitioner that the electronic media took upon themselves the role of the investigating agencies, prosecutors and adjudicators in pronouncing persons guilty of committing an offence, even before the formal investigation was completed by the investigating agencies. Additionally, it was claimed that the news channels had also resorted to reckless reporting against the state agencies on whom the powers of investigation are conferred by law. It is the petitioners’ main contention that such interference by the electronic media in the course of a lawful investigation of any alleged crime defies all cannons of legal legitimacy.

Based on these grounds, the reliefs sought by the petitioners were for the issuance of necessary directions to the media channels by courts urging for temporary postponement of news reporting in any form of a media trial or parallel investigation into the probe being done regarding the alleged unnatural death of the actor. The petitioners had also prayed for the issuance of the writ of mandamus containing directions/guidelines not to allow electronic, radio, internet or any other form of media from publishing any false, derogatory and scandalous news reports which may either jeopardize the reputation of the police and affect administration of justice, and to only indulge in a balanced ethical and objective reporting.

Observations made by the Court on freedom of speech of electronic media:

The 251-page judgment of the Bombay High Court, a constitutional court, is now the most recent jurisprudential marker on established standards for media publications, electronic media and networks when they report ongoing investigations and legal proceedings. While laying down several norms specifying the conduct that needs to be followed by anchors during debates and programmes, the Court noted that the petitioners had not urged the Court for a gag order, but had rather moved the courts to right a wrong in view of the apathy of the Union of India and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (Para 212)

Through the judgment, one of the main questions dealt by the Court was whether media conducting a trial when a police investigation is in progress amounts to obstruction in administration of justice and thus amounts to criminal contempt of court.

“…we hold that any act done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for “administration of justice”, could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC (Contempt of Court) Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law.” (Para 248)

The court also observed that “a person cannot be dehumanized, disreputed, vilified and maligned qua his societal existence at the hands of the media in an attempt to sensationalize any crime which is under investigation.” (Para 247)

In its judgement, the Court had acknowledged that ‘Freedom of speech and expression’ guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is indeed the life blood of our democracy. The court had further deemed the said right to be crucial as it ensures free flow of opinions and ideas essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. However, the Court had stated that the right to freedom of speech and expression like all other rights in the Constitution is also not absolute; it is subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions. Re-iterating this, the Court had stated that

“Notwithstanding that freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and the role of the press/media to discover the truth and to ensure proper functioning of the democratic process is undoubtedly salutary, at the same time, the press/media must remember that its concern for discovery of truth and maintenance of purity in all streams of good governance by opening up channels of free discussion of issues should stop short of exceeding the permissible legal and Constitutional means.” (Para 228)

The court also emphasised upon the role that media plays in moulding the opinion of the common person in India, making it all the more essential for them to abide by the rules of responsibility, neutrality and impartiality in their reporting.

“Given the circumstance that the press/media has the ability to mould the opinion of the society by publicity of certain facets of an investigative process, which could give rise to strong public emotions and prejudice the case of one party or the other, it ought to refrain from taking stances in its presentations which are biased and show a predilection for a particular point of view having enormous potential of deflecting the course of justice.” (Para 312)

While the Court recognised the existence of many judgments of the Supreme Court as well as guidelines issued by self-regulatory mechanisms that aims to keep media under check, it emphasised the need for courts to bring in some corrective measures.

“Drawing from experience, there is good enough reason to conclude that the hope and trust are belied and the self-regulatory mechanism has failed to deliver in adequate measure in keeping erring media houses under check. It is now time that some corrective action is taken, lest judicial independence remains only on paper and right-thinking people start losing faith in the justice delivery system and doubt the capacity of the Courts to correct what needs to be corrected.” (Para 316)

Observations made by the Court on media playing the role of investigator(s):

In the judgment, the Court had specifically mentioned the programmes that were run by Times Now and Republic TV. Commenting on the claims made by these channels, the Court remarked upon the various concerns in their coverage, from lack of courtesy toward women, propagation of unfounded theories and uncalled scathing attacks against Mumbai Police.

“In the process, in an attempt to out-smart each other (for reasons which we need not discuss here), these two TV channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation thereby exposing, what in their perception, Mumbai Police had suppressed, caring less for the rights of other stakeholders and throwing the commands of the Cr.P.C. and all sense of propriety to the winds. It amuses us not a little that Republic TV doffed its own hat, in appreciation of what its team had achieved, without realizing that it could be irking and invite adverse comments.” (Para 329)

“These TV channels took upon themselves the role of the investigator, the prosecutor as well as the Judge and delivered the verdict as if, during the pandemic, except they all organs of the State were in slumber.” (Para 329)

On the media deeming the investigation of the Mumbai Police to be shoddy even as the Supreme Court had expressed their prima facie satisfaction of Mumbai Police not having indulged in any wrong doing, the Court stated the same to be disregard of the rule of law. In the judgment, the court held the same to be lacking in bona fides and aimed at interfering with and/or obstructing administration of justice. Furthermore, the court found the same to have the propensity to shake the public confidence in the capability of the police machinery and the efficacy of the judiciary.

“We have no hesitation to record that this sort of reporting by the media is immensely prejudicial to the interests of the accused and could dent the process of a future fair trial and derail due administration of criminal justice, once the matter reaches the appropriate court having jurisdiction.” (Para 329)

On the issue of programmes levying unfounded accusations and allegations, in this case against Mumbai Police, even as the cases await verdict in court, the Court instructed media houses to not display any biased information or incorrect reporting.

“Any biased information or incorrect reporting may damage not only the good and clean reputation of a police officer, built over the years, but also the institution to which he belongs. We need to remind that every journalist/reporter has an overriding duty to the society of educating the masses with fair, accurate, trustworthy and responsible reports relating to reportable events/incidents and above all to the standards of his/her profession. Thus, the temptation to sensationalize should be resisted.” (Para 331)

Specific directions issued by the Court:

The court issued the following specific restrictions on press/media and directed the media to refrain from displaying/printing any news item or initiating debate/discussion in the nature:

1. In relation to death by suicide, depicting the deceased as one having a weak character or intruding in any manner on the privacy of the deceased;

2. That causes prejudice to an ongoing inquiry/investigation by:

i) Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;

ii) Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;

iii) Analysing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;

iv) Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;

v) Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;

vi) Criticising the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;

vii) Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;

viii) Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;

ix) Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and

x) Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency;

3. Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the CTVN Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and

4. Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation. (Para 349)

The court held that these directions are not exhaustive but indicative and any news report by press/media ought to conform to Programme Code, the norms of journalistic standards and the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Regulations; and any default would invite not only action from concerned authorities under the law but would also amount to criminal contempt of court under the CoC Act. (Para 350)

Directions for responsibly inviting guests at debates:

In the judgment, the court also took into consideration the contention raised by media houses that when guests are invited to speak, it is difficult to censor their statements. The court held that while that may be true, it does not grant any speaker the license to either abuse or defame any particular individual which would make the channel as well as the individual liable for defamation and in case it amounts to obstruction to administration of justice then both the media house and the speaker can be liable for criminal contempt of court.

“It has been urged on behalf of the media houses that on diverse occasions, the guests are invited to speak and address the audience on a particular topic during programmes which are telecast live and, in such cases, it is difficult for the media houses to censor the statements of such guests. What the media houses say could be true, but that would not grant any speaker the license to either abuse or defame any particular individual, who could be the target of the speech, to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of the viewers or to indulge in interference with and/or obstruction to administration of justice by such public speaking.” (Para 351)

The bench did not limit themselves to only the conduct of the anchors during the programmes, but also issued guidelines for when guests are invited to the programmes for their opinions. The court held that in case a defamatory statement is made, the targeted individual could sue the media as well as the speaker. On the other hand, if any speaker indulges in interference with and/or obstruction to administration of justice by such public speaking, both the media house and the speaker may be proceeded against for criminal contempt.

“It would not be enough for the media house to put up a disclaimer at the end of the programme that it does not associate itself with the views of the speaker and thereby evade liability. To obviate such situation, the media houses would be well advised to inform, guide and advise the guest speakers to refrain from making public utterances which are likely to interfere with and/or obstruct administration of justice and thereby attract contempt.” (Para 351)

The court further emphasised upon the essential role that anchor plays to ensure that debates do not drift away from topics of discussions and drift away from permissible limits.

“The role of the anchor, in such cases, is also important. It is for him/her to apply his/her mind and avoid the programme from drifting beyond the permissible limits. Muting the speaker if he flies off or shows tendency of flying off at a tangent could be one of several ways to avoid embarrassment as well as contempt.” (Para 351)

Furthermore, the following fundamental directives were also issued by the Court:

• The privacy and dignity of the victim must always be respected;
• The sensitive information related to the case should never be made public.
• The confession/admission made in front of an investigator cannot published;
• The interviews of anyone who is connected to the case may not be undertaken when the matter is sub-judice.

Forming the conclusion of the judgment were similar other observations of the Court emphasised that the press must deliver news stories in their genuine and accurate form. The Court further stated that it must include the account of the events as it was honestly recorded, without exaggeration or bias, and any form of distortion and the incidence should not be overemphasised for the sake of gaining more and more viewers.

The complete judgment can be read below:

Bombay High Court reiterates Nilesh Navalakha judgment:

The Bombay High Court was faced with another case where media houses had crossed a line and published objectionable content in a criminal case, harming the reputation of the parties involved.

Facts of the case:

In Pune, a Class 10 student had fallen off the balcony of her house and died. After this incident, various print and electronic media started circulating news alleging that the deceased was having illicit relations with one Y. Around 12 audio clips of alleged conversations of daughter X with some unknown persons were circulated by political parties and media, the contents of which were to defame the name and image of the Petitioner and his family and his daughter.

The Counsel for the petitioner, Shirish Gupte, cited the directions and guidelines issued by the Bombay High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta in Nilesh Navalakha v. UOI and ors. The counsel had provided how the High Court bench had reprimanded the media houses and warned them against conducting ‘media trials’ and had said that that if news channels had in fact found any incriminating evidence pertaining to any case, they should provide it to the police.

Order of the Court:

The bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and SS Shinde issued notice to the respondents and in the interim directed them to scrupulously follow the guidelines in the Nilesh Navlakha case and not to publish or give any unnecessary publicity to the incident of death of the daughter X of the Petitioner and further alleged illicit relationship with Y.

The order can be read here:

Concrete implementation remains lacking, anchors continue with media trials:

“The role of the anchor is very important. Hate speech either takes place in the mainstream television or it takes place in the social media. Social media is largely unregulated. As far as mainstream television channel is concerned, we still hold sway, there the role of anchor is very critical because the moment you see somebody going into hate speech, it’s the duty of the anchor to immediately see that he doesn’t allow that person to say anything further.”

Retired Supreme Court Justice KM Joseph, along with Justice Hrishikesh Roy, had emphasised the importance of press freedom and role of anchor while hearing a clutch of 11 writ petitions seeking the court’s intervention to regulate hate speech. On September 21, 2022 the Supreme Court bench in the matter of Shaheen Abdullah vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 940/2022] had singled out the debates conducted on the electronic media which they held were “the chief medium of hate speech”.

During the hearings of the case, which is still being heard in the Supreme Court albeit by a different bench, had once again brought the issue of the negative role that anchors have been playing and the spread of hate and misinformation through media. Notably, in the said matter the necessity of regulating media and laying down laws for the same was also highlighted.

Justice Joseph observed, “We should have a proper legal framework unless we will have a framework people will continue and the most important point is where is our nation headed, if it is hate speech on which we are feeding on where is our nation headed”.

An additional factor was highlighted in this comment by Justice Roy: “Hate drives TRPs, drives profit.” The said observation had shed light on the issue of media houses picking up contentious issues and thinking of themselves as “profit centres”, enabling and allowing people to make unchecked controversial remarks on television.  The court pointed out that while television hosts permit certain panellists to make venomous remarks, they prevent the opposite side from airing its opposing viewpoints by muting their microphones. The bench then ruled that errant news anchors should face stern punishment and be removed from the broadcast.

Justices Joseph and Roy have asked the government to come back with proposals of what can be done to regulate the media on hate speech and suggested that perhaps something along the lines of the Vishaka guidelines, issued by the Supreme Court in 1997 before the law on sexual harassment was enacted in 2013, could be considered.

No such regulations have been issued, to date, by the Union government.

The order can be read here:

Court scrutiny on anchors and media continues:

In August 2023, the Supreme Court had deemed the limit of Rs 1 lakh on imposition of fine on television channels for airing disputed news by the self-regulatory mechanism by News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) to be ineffective. The said observation was made by the Supreme Court bench while hearing a petition by the NBDA challenging the Bombay high court’s aforementioned judgment in Nilesh Navalakha. The NBDA had challenged the 2021 verdict as it contained adverse observations about the lack of teeth in the self-regulation of TV channels.

A three judged bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, had questioned the proportionality of the penalties imposed on TV channels for airing disputed news, stating that the same should be equal to the profits earned by the channels, rather than being limited to Rs 1 lakh fine. The court had also noted that the said limitation of 1 lakh on fines was fixed way back in 2008.

During the arguments, the acknowledged NBDA’s stance against pre-censorship or post-censorship on news channels through statutory mechanism, while stressing upon the necessity for an effective self-regulatory mechanism. As highlighted in the order of the Court, the bench urged that there was a need to strengthen the self-regulatory mechanism and stated that it will issue guidelines to strengthen the regulation of TV channels.

Notably, the said guidelines are yet to be issued by the Supreme Court.

The full order of the Court can be viewed here:

Related:

Media fraternity condemns government directed ban of independent media channels

On Women’s Day DUJ Call for a Less Polarized, More Inclusive Media

Social media giants summoned at US Senate hearing for internet safety

The post How free is free and can there be freedom without responsibility: Courts on media coverage of trials, erring conduct of anchors appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court was faced with another case where media houses had crossed a line and published objectionable content in a criminal case, harming the reputation of the parties involved. In Pune, a Class 10 student had fallen off the balcony of her house and died. 

After this incident, various print and electronic media started circulating news alleging that the deceased was having illicit relations with one Y. Around 12 audio clips of alleged conversations of daughter X with some unknown person were circulated by political parties and media, the contents of which were to defame the name and image of the Petitioner and his family and his daughter.

The Counsel for the petitioner, Shirish Gupte, cited the directions and guidelines issued by the Bombay High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta in Nilesh Navalakha v. UOI and ors. The bench had reprimanded the media houses and warned them against conducting ‘media trials’ and had said that that if news channels had in fact found any incriminating evidence pertaining to any case, they should provide it to the police.

The bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and SS Shinde issued notice to the respondents and in the interim directed them to scrupulously follow the guidelines in the Nilesh Navlakha case and not to publish or give any unnecessary publicity to the incident of death of the daughter X of the Petitioner and further alleged illicit relationship with Y.

The complete order may be read  here:

Related:

From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

SSR Case: Bom HC reprimands news channels for ‘media trial’

Javed Akhtar vs Kangana Ranaut: Mumbai court issues bailable warrant against Ranaut

The post Bom HC asks media houses to exercise restraint, per directions against ‘media trial’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bombay High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta delivered a rather lengthy judgment analysing media trials and whether the media over stepping and obstructing investigation in criminal cases amounted to criminal contempt of court.

While the court refrained from issuing any notice of contempt of court for obstructing administration of justice, it did reprimand the media houses, and warned them against indulging in such practices. The bench, also comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni, reiterated the role of statutory authorities under the Cable Television Networks Act and directed them to take necessary action in complaints received by them.

The judgment dealt with four different petitions pertaining to media coverage by certain news channels on the suicide case of actor Sushant Singh Rajput which led to a media trial affecting the rights of the accused as well as maligning the reputation of Mumbai Police. The petitioners included individuals Prerna Arora, Asim Sarode, Nilesh Navalakha and others; Mahesh Narayan Singh (former IPS) and other retired civil servants as well as an NGO named In Pursuit of Justice.

The petitioners’ submissions

The petitioners contended that TV channels were trying to influence the course of investigation by virtually running a vituperative daily campaign against Mumbai Police thus eroding public confidence. It was also submitted that while freedom of press must be safeguarded, it is not permissible to have medial trial resulting into parallel investigation being done by several private individuals by expressing opinion, exposing material witnesses as well as examining of witnesses and divulging crucial pieces of evidence before the investigating agency could have a chance to examine them. All of these acts create an atmosphere of prejudice and casts a threat on independent inquiry by investigating agencies who could get affected by public opinion driven by media trials. The petitioners deemed media trials to be an affront to the rule of law and an interference with administration of justice.

The petitioners also cited Supreme Court precedent in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 457 whereby the court held that “Premature disclosures or ‘leakage’ to the media in a pending investigation will not only jeopardise and impede further investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape from law.”

The respondents’ submissions

Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh submitted on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that there is sufficient regulatory framework in place for regulating electronic media which primarily consists of “statutory regulation” and “self-regulation”. The government further submitted that it is currently considering the issue of enforceability of the self-regulatory mechanism and is contemplating one statutory umbrella mechanism redressal of grievances while completely ensuring journalistic freedom, honouring and respecting the freedom of speech and expression and ensuring a mechanism which would ensure impartiality.

Counsel for Times Now, Kunal Tandon relied on a few judgements and stated that Court has refrained from passing any order to gag the media and formulated a neutralising device by issuing order directing not to issue any communication, naming any accused or any witness till the charges, if any, are framed and the trial is commenced, so as to protect the interest of the persons involved in the criminal proceedings.

Times Now further submitted that like a law officer or a judge are unlikely to get affected by media reporting, the same equally applies to an investigating agency, more so as the investigating agency is fully bound by the procedures provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. “In regard to the influence of media reporting on the mind of the witness, it is submitted that in most cases witness is aware of his/her role in the investigation process and is made aware that he/she has to state the truth as and when questioned by the investigating authorities,” submitted the channel.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar on behalf of the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF) submitted that restriction on reporting by media from the stage of registration of FIR till the filing of the charge-sheet, would tantamount to no crime ever being reported and would amount to silencing of the press. It defended the media trial conducted by the news channels and called it investigative journalism stating that the media unearthed a pile of evidence and that it played a key role to use its skill in investigative journalism to bring key testimonies, evidence, corroborations and inconsistencies into the public domain, while assisting the investigating agencies.

Court’s observations

Before delving into questions of law, the court laid down some guiding principles for itself to make the decision. While it regarded Article 19 (1) (a) the right to freedom of speech and expression as paramount and cited judgments to assert that it needs to be safeguarded, the court observed that there was, misuse or mal-exercise of such freedom of speech and further observed that it was the most abused right in recent times.

The court stated that the thought process while answering the questions raised were centred around the premise that in a society governed by the rule of law, no price is too high to maintain the purity of administration of justice and as a constitutional court, it was its duty to not only protect fundamental rights but also to secure that the stream of administration of justice flows unsullied and unpolluted uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.

“Notwithstanding that freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and the role of the press/media to discover the truth and to ensure proper functioning of the democratic process is undoubtedly salutary, at the same time, the press/media must remember that its concern for discovery of truth and maintenance of purity in all streams of good governance by opening up channels of free discussion of issues should stop short of exceeding the permissible legal and Constitutional means.”

The court observed that any report of the press/media, having the propensity of tilting the balance against fair and impartial “administration of justice”, could make a mockery of the justice delivery system rendering ‘truth’ a casualty and that it was the duty of the press to report correct versions of incidents without any distortion/embellishment.

Court’s findings

The court did not hold merit for any submissions challenging the maintainability of the PILs for lack of locus standi and so on. The court then went on to frame questions to be considered while finally deciding the petitions.

Questions 1 and 2

Firstly, the court dealt with the first two questions whether a media conducting a trial when a police investigation is in progress amounts to obstruction in administration of justice and thus amounts to criminal contempt of court.

“…we hold that any act done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for “administration of justice”, could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC (Contempt of Court) Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law.”

The court also observed that “a person cannot be dehumanized, disreputed, vilified and maligned qua his societal existence at the hands of the media in an attempt to sensationalize any crime which is under investigation.”

Question no. 3

The next question, no. 3, was pertaining to the restrictions as contained in the Programme Code as postulated under section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995and the rules and whether a media trial in matters pending investigation fall under such restriction. Section of the CTVN Act states that all programmes broadcasted should conform with the Programme Code, which is under Rule 6 of the CTVN Rules, which has a comprehensive list of what kind of programmes should not be aired which includes content that is obscene, defamatory, amounts to contempt of court, criticises, maligns an individual, denigrates women and so on.

The court thus held that “the matters which are pending investigation on a criminal complaint clearly fall within the restriction as contained in the Programme Code as stipulated under section 5 of the CTVN Act and Rule 6 of the CTVN Rules.”

Question No. 4

The question no. 4 was whether the regime of self-regulation adopted by the news channels would have any sanctity within the statutory framework. The court pointed out that the News Broadcasters Association model of self regulation was approved by the Nariman Committee which was constituted then by the Supreme Court. The high court held that the recommendations of the Committee constitute sufficient guidelines which need to be adopted, but the apex court left it to the authorities to take appropriate steps for its implementation, without giving any positive directions to that regard.

The high court thus refuted the submissions made by NBA that it was, as a self-regulatory mechanism, conclusive.

“It needs to be stated that despite clear directions of the Supreme Court, we are not shown any directives issued by the Central Government accepting the self-regulatory mechanism to be a conclusive mechanism. The self-regulatory mechanism does not have any statutory recognition, in the absence of which, it is not possible for us to hold that the self-regulatory mechanism would have any sanctity in law.”

The court also pointed out how the membership of NBA or NBF was voluntary and any channel wanting to evade such self-regulation could simply not join or cancel their membership thus making it as good as a farce. The court opined that “such self-regulatory mechanism would hardly meet the constitutional expectations of the citizens of a fair and responsible broadcasting, which would not be of a nature of an unwarranted sensitization, excessive publicity, leakage of evidence, and vilifying coverage, affecting public confidence in the judicial system and in the administration of criminal justice”.

Question No. 5

The following question no.5 was to strike a balance between freedom of speech and fair trial, to what extent, if at all, press reporting should be regulated if it interferes with “administration of justice”.      

The court primarily held that while the right of a fair trial has to be zealously guarded, equally important is the right of the press/media to keep the public informed of matters of public interest.

“…to amount to a trial by media, the impact of the press/media coverage on the reputation of the person targeted as an accused must be such that it is sufficient to create a widespread perception of his guilt, prior to pronouncement of verdict by the court, thus making him the subject of intense public scrutiny for the rest of his life.”

The court held that by an investigator that a free, fair, impartial, effective and meaningful investigation of a cognizable offence is a necessary concomitant of “administration of justice”, any speech/publication must also yield to larger considerations of maintaining the purity of administration of justice. The court held that since the media has the ability to mould opinion giving rise to strong public emotions, it ought to refrain from taking stances in its presentations which are biased and show a predilection for a particular point of view having enormous potential of deflecting the course of justice.

Responding to investigative journalism claim

Responding to contention of Republic TV that investigative journalism gathers incriminating materials that could connect the accused with the offence of murder and there was an honest endeavour to present facts before the public, the court stated that as per the law, if the channel or anyone is in possession of information that could assist the investigator, “it ought not to be part of a news coverage but it would be the duty of such channel to provide the information that it has to the police under sections 37 to 39 of the Cr.P.C. to facilitate a proper investigation”.

The court further observed that the campaign against Mumbai Police of suppressing facts was ill founded as the Supreme Court was satisfied that there was no wrongdoing, prima facie (order dated August 19, 2020). The court admitted that the media had belied all hopes that it would cover events accurately without impinging on others’ rights and that the self-regulatory mechanism has failed to deliver in adequate measure in keeping erring media houses under check. The court’s answer to the question concluded “that regulation of reporting by the media amounting to a ‘media trial’ is necessary but limited to securing the rights of others under Article 21 as well as to preserve and maintain the sanctity of the criminal justice system of the country”.

Question A

The court further considered incidental questions and delved into whether there should be guidelines for reporting death by suicide. The court observed that the Press Council of India, which is a statutory body, had issued certain guidelines to this regard applicable to newspapers and journalists  and held these guidelines to be comprehensive and binding and hence should also be followed by electronic media.

Question B

The next question under consideration was whether the media coverage by the respondent channels (Times Now and Republic TV) amounted to criminal contempt of court. The court went through the many clippings submitted as evidence and observed that both channels,

“in an attempt to out-smart each other (for reasons which we need not discuss here), these two TV channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation thereby exposing, what in their perception, Mumbai Police had suppressed, caring less for the rights of other stakeholders and throwing the commands of the Cr.P.C. and all sense of propriety to the winds.”

The court took judicial notice that the actress although entitled to her rights, was painted as a villain and was held guilty by the media of orchestrating the actor’s murder much before filing of police report under section 173(2), Cr.P.C. and the court held such kind of reporting to be prejudicial to the interests of the accused and one that could dent the process of a future fair trial and derail due administration of criminal justice, once the matter reaches the appropriate court having jurisdiction.

The court, while, prima facie, considering it a fit case for criminal contempt of court at the hands of the TV Channels, refrained from initiating action under CoC Act against the channels. The court said, “we hope and trust that they shall act more responsibly in future and not create a situation for the Court to take recourse to the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution and the CoC Act to invoke its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.”

Question C

The court further considered the question whether the accusation that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had abdicated its statutory functions under CTVN by forwarding complaints to NBF and NBA, justified. The court held that the implementation of the CTVN Act and rules and their provisions was far from satisfactory. The court gave mainly two reasons for this: firstly, because no authority had undertaken any surveillance to The nature of surveillance required to scrutinize the contents being broadcast to ascertain as to whether they are in violation of the Programme Code and no decision was taken with regards to the complaints received; and secondly, because the Ministry stated in it affidavit that the complaint were directed to NBA.

“We do not approve such abdication of substantive power conferred by the CTVN Act and the CTVN Rules by such authorities in favour of a voluntary organization (private body), which is formed by the channels themselves, namely, the NBA and which has constituted the ‘NBSA’.”

The court held that it would be “mandatory obligation” of authorities under CTVN Act to “immediately act upon the complaints received against the TV channels who are alleged to be violating the Programme Code or any other provisions of the CTVN Act and the CTVN Rules and take necessary action as provided for thereunder.”

“We, accordingly, direct that every complaint which would be made on the contents of any programme on any television channel, either to the authorized officer or the Central Government in regard to violation of the Programme Code, shall be dealt with in a manner as provided under the CTVN Act and immediate action be taken thereon, without involvement of any private bodies like NBSA or NBF. This would be de hors any complaint made to these bodies or any other such bodies, which would be dealt by these bodies as per their self-regulatory mechanism.” (emphasis supplied)

Question D

The next question considered by the court was whether any specific order should be made to postpone reporting of this particular case or issue certain measures for regulating media coverage of similar incidents. The court held that having regard to the findings in this case, it was a fit case to pass postponement orders to pause the reportage however, the hysteria in the media appears to have calmed down and hence, the court refrained from passing any such specific order.

“While not proposing to issue directions for postponement of news reporting for the reasons noted above, yet, bearing in mind the adverse impact that a trial by media could have on pending investigations (which was not the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions), that an accused is entitled to Constitutional protections and invasion of his rights is to be zealously guarded, that there is an emerging need to foster a degree of responsibility as well as promote accountability and the reason in the paragraph that follows, we do not consider it to be either impermissible or imprudent in the present context to maintain a fine balance between competing rights as well as having regard to the ever-changing societal needs to suggest measures for exercise of restraint by the media in respect of certain specified matters, with a view to secure proper administration of justice, while it proceeds to exercise its right to report.”

The court opined that the media/press ought to avoid certain reports/debates/discussion touching upon ongoing investigation and only those items are presented for reading/viewing which are merely informative and in public interest.

The court directed that “No report/discussion/debate/interview should be presented by the press/media which could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case or any such person who may be relevant for any investigation, with a view to satiate the thirst of stealing a march over competitors in the field of reporting.”

Specific directions

The court issued the following specific restrictions on press/media and directed the media to refrain from displaying/printing any news item or initiating debate/discussion in the nature:

a. In relation to death by suicide, depicting the deceased as one having a weak character or intruding in any manner on the privacy of the deceased;

b. That causes prejudice to an ongoing inquiry/investigation by:

(i) Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;

(ii) Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;

(iii) Analyzing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;

(iv) Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;

(v) Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;

(vi) Criticizing the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;

(vii) Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;

(viii) Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;

(ix) Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and

(x) Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency;

c. Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the CTVN Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and

d. Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation.

The court held that these directions are not exhaustive but indicative and any news report by press/media ought to conform to Programme Code, the norms of journalistic standards and the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Regulations; and any default would invite not only action from concerned authorities under the law but would also amount to criminal contempt of court under the CoC Act.

The court also took into consideration the contention raised by media houses that when guests are invited to speak, it is difficult to censor their statements. The court held that while that may be true, it does not grant any speaker the license to either abuse or defame any particular individual which would make the channel as well as the individual liable for defamation and in case it amounts to obstruction to administration of justice then both the media house and the speaker can be liable for criminal contempt of court.

The court held that it is not sufficient to put a disclaimer that it does not associate itself with the views of the speaker and so to obviate the situation, the news channels could inform and guide the guest to refrain from making statements of such nature.

The court also reminded investigating agencies that they are entitled to maintain secrecy in the course of investigation and if at all there is leakage of sensitive information which could stifle investigation, it could proceed for laying charges of criminal contempt, before the appropriate court.

The court also advised that investigating agencies including the police may appoint any officer to be a link between them and the media for providing information that is in public interest.

The court concluded by stating that the enlightening discussion in all such decisions (cases cited by all parties) on media trials that impact the judicial process and the necessity to interfere only in exceptional cases, where rights of the accused are infringed, has deeply enriched us and lighted the correct path to be followed.

The complete judgement may be read here.

Related:

Manipur journalists released; charges dropped

Republic TV and Times Now reportage prima facie contemptuous: Bombay High Court

UP Police submit production warrant for Munawar Faruqui

The post SSR Case: Bom HC reprimands news channels for ‘media trial’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
सबरंग ट्रस्ट के सभी लोग खास कर मैं निजी तौर पर उन जहरीले आरोपों के जाल का जोरदार खंडन करती हूं, जो हम सब या मेरे इर्द-गिर्द बुना जा रहा है। मेरे ऊपर सत्ता के ऊपरी स्तर की ओर से जो आरोप झोंके जा रहे हैं मैं उनका भी जोरदार खंडन करती हूं। पत्रकार और चैनल जिस तरह से सत्ताधारी लोगों के हाथ कठपुतली बन कर नाच रहे हैं, उस देख कर भी हमें तरस आता है।

 वर्ष 1990 से खोज प्रोजेक्ट के तहत जो काम चल रहा है उसका संबंध भारतीय संविधान के दृष्टिकोण से जुड़े अहम मुद्दों से है। स्कूली पाठ्यक्रमों और टीचर ट्रेनिंग मैनुअल के जरिये संविधान के इन दृष्टिकोण का प्रसार ही इस कार्यक्रम का उद्देश्य है। यह काम मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय की ओर से 2010-2014 के बीच जारी किए गए अनुदान के जरिये संभव हुआ है। यह काम प्रख्यात इतिहासकारों से मिलकर की जा रही ‘खोज’ की कोशिश का ही विस्तार है।

हमारे इस काम को नफरत फैलाने वाला करार देना सचमुच दयनीय है। खास कर वैसे दौर में जब सरकार, कैबिनेट और पार्लियामेंट के सदस्य देश के लोगों के बांटने के लिए नफरत भरे भाषणों और लेखन को हथियार के तौर पर इस्तेमाल कर रहे हों। 2014 के बाद ऐसा करने वाले लोग सरकार और संसद में अहम जगहों पर बैठे हुए हैं।

सबरंग ट्रस्ट / तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ लगाए गए आरोपों के जवाब देने की जिस तरह से की मांग की जा रही है, उसे लेकर हमारी बेहद गंभीर चिंताएं हैं। ये आरोप केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय के एक पैनल की ओर से तैयार एक रिपोर्ट के आधार पर लगाए गए हैं। इस रिपोर्ट (बारी कमेटी रिपोर्ट) को हमने अभी देखा भी नहीं है।

हम मीडिया के एक वर्ग की ओर से अपनाए जा रहे पत्रकारीय आचारसंहिता पर सवाल उठा रहे हैं। मीडिया का यह वर्ग इस कथित रिपोर्ट के आधार पर लगाए गए आरोपों का जवाब तो हमसे चाहता है लेकिन यह हमारे साथ पूरी रिपोर्ट साझा करने के भी तैयार नहीं है।
  

Also read: Niira Radia tapes capture Navika Kumar’s role in 2G scam

And listen (audio): The Navika Kumar, Timesnow (Times of India) reporter & Nira Radia Tape below::

अक्टूबर, 2016 में एक और न्यूज चैनल, न्यूज एक्स भी हमारे खिलाफ ऐसे ही आरोप लेकर मैदान में कूद पड़ा था। उस दौरान न्यूज एक्स ने भी टाइम्स नाऊ की तरह ही आरोप लगाने शुरू किए थे। दोनों इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया चैनलों के पास यह रिपोर्ट है। लेकिन विडंबना देखिये कि  पब्लिक डोमेन से यह नदारद है।

लगातार और धमकाने वाली मीडिया रिपोर्टों से ऐसा लगता है कि मेरे खिलाफ एक और झूठी आपराधिक शिकायत चस्पा करने का माहौल तैयार किया जा रहा है। इस बार यह सरकार में ऊंचे पदों पर बैठे लोगों के इशारे पर हो रहा है। मीडिया के इन हमलों के बाद मैंने (तीस्ता सीतलवाड़) ने केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्री प्रकाश जावड़ेकर को चिट्ठी ( इस चिट्ठी की स्कैन कॉपी यहां संलग्न है) लिखी है। अफसोस कि जिन अखबारों ने मेरे खिलाफ आपराधिक शिकायत दर्ज करने की संभावना जताते हुए एक्सक्लूसिव रिपोर्ट छापी थी, उन्होंने भी बारी कमेटी की रिपोर्ट की मांग करती हुई हमारी चिट्ठी को छापने की जरूरत नहीं समझी ( अखबारों के लिंक यहां मौजूद हैं)।

 
In October 2016 another news channel, NewsX indulged in a similar exercise, today it is Times Now. Both electronic channels had copies of the report which ironically is not available in the public domain.
 
Following intermittent and threatening media reports of the possibility of yet another false criminal complaint against me, this time instigated by senior echelons of the government, I, Teesta Setalvad had written to the Minister for Human Resources Development (MHRD) Mr Prakash Javdekar, on the issue (attached here is a scanned copy of the letter). Unfortunately even the newspapers that had carried ‘exclusives’ about the possibility of a criminal complaint did not see it fit to carry our request to the minister for a copy of the said report (see links of newspapers)
 

Email to Minister MHRD:
 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Teesta Setalvad<teestateesta@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Communication (28.12.2016) to Hon Minister Prakash Javdekar from Teesta Setalvad
To: minister.hrd@gov.in

Dear Sir,
Good Morning. Attached is a letter for Hon MHRD Minister, Mr Prakash Javdekar which I would request is placed before him at the earliest.
The letter (scanned and attached) has been dispatched in the original by registered post and also faxed to the Ministry.

Yours Sincerely,
Teesta Setalvad
Activist, Journalist & Educationist

फर्जी आरोपों के जवाब

हम पर जो फर्जी और झूठे आरोप हैं, उनके जवाब यहां पेश हैं –

– सबरंग ट्रस्ट की ओर से जब केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय में अनुदान के लिए आवेदन किया गया था तो उसे ट्रस्ट की एक डीड की एक कॉपी सौंपी गई थी। सबरंग ट्रस्ट के ट्रस्टी लगातार अपने इस विचार पर कायम रहे हैं कि इसके लक्ष्य और उद्देश्यों में शैक्षणिक गतिविधियां शामिल हैं, लिहाजा यह अनुदान के लिए आवेदन करने की योग्यता रखता है।

• अनुदान जारी किए जाने से पहले मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय की एक मूल्यांकन टीम ने खोज प्रोजेक्ट का मूल्यांकन किया। इस टीम में केंद्र और महाराष्ट्र सरकार के शिक्षा विभाग के एक-एक अधिकारी शामिल थे। जिस दौरान खोज को अनुदान जारी था, उस दौरान यानी जनवरी, 2012 में ऐसी  ही एक संयुक्त मूल्यांकन टीम (जेईटी) ने इसका मध्यावधि मूल्यांकन किया था। जेईटी ने अन्य टिप्पणी के अलावा जो अहम टिप्पणी दर्ज की उसके मुताबिक – खोज प्रोजेक्ट के तहत किए जा रहे कार्य और अपनाई जा रही गतिविधियां निश्चित तौर पर तारीफ के लायक हैं। इनका काम इसलिए भी महत्वपूर्ण है क्योंकि इस परियोजना के तहत धर्मनिरपेक्षता और शांति की शिक्षा के प्रसार (जो बेहद जरूरी है) की जैसी कोशिश हो रही है वैसी पहल मुख्यधारा के स्कूलों में शायद ही हो रही हो। मुख्यधारा के स्कूलों में दी जा रही शिक्षा में धर्मनिरपेक्षता के मूल्यों और उद्देश्यों को बढ़ावा देने का काम दुर्लभ दिख रहा है। खोज के शिक्षकों ने इन मूल्यों और उद्देश्यों की सीख देने के दौरान जो अनुभव जेईटी के साथ साझा कि उनसे शहरों के गरीब इलाकों में रहने वाले बच्चों के लिए इसकी अहमियत का पता चलता है। ट्रेनिंग के दौरान के कुछ उदाहरणों से इनके महत्व का पता चलता है। 
• यहां इस बात का उल्लेख जरूरी है कि बहुलतावादी भारत को बढ़ावा देने के लिए शुरू की गई खोज परियोजना को मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ने ‘स्कीम्स ऑफ असिसस्टेंस फॉर इनोवेटिव एंड एक्सपेरिमेंटल एजुकेशनल प्रोग्राम्स’ के तहत अनुदान दिया था। यह अनुदान सर्वशिक्षा अभियान के तहत स्वैच्छिक संगठनों को दिए जाने  वाले फंड के तहत आता है। 
• कहा जा रहा है कि अनुदान एनसीईआरटी के विरोध में जारी किया गया। हम इस बारे में हम कोई टिप्पणी नहीं कर सकते क्योंकि इस बारे में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय और एनसीईआरटी के बीच अगर कोई संवाद हुआ हो तो हमें इसकी जानकारी नहीं है।
• यह आरोप लगाया जा रहा है कि तीस्ता के ट्रस्ट की ओर से प्रकाशित की गई ट्रेनिंग और अध्ययन सामग्री आपत्तिजनक है। यह नफरत फैलाती है और सामाजिक एकता और शांति के लिहाज से जहर फैलाने वाली है। लेकिन हम इस आरोप का पुरजोर खंडन करते हैं। हमने ऐसी कोई सामग्री प्रकाशित नहीं की है जिससे समाज में नफरत फैले या जिससे माहौल जहरीला हो। 
• इन सवालों के मद्देनजर तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ आईपीसी की धारा 153 ए और 153 बी, के तहत जो प्रथम दृष्टया आरोप लगाए गए हैं, वे राजनीति से प्रेरित होने के अलावा और कुछ नहीं हैं।

The post तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ फिर मीडिया ट्रायल – बदला लेने के लिए चलाई जा रही नफरत की आंधी appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
All of us at Sabrang Trust and I personally would like to emphatically refute the bilious allegations that we believe are being spun or flung from the very highest echelons of the government at me/us. We also find it pitiable that journalists and channels are playing the role of echo masters of the regime.
 
The work that the KHOJ project has been involved in, since the 1990s, deals with the crucial issues of incorporating the Indian constitutional vision into the school curriculum and through teacher training manuals and workshops. The work that was possible through the grant from the MHRD between 2010-2014 was but an extension of the dedicated work being undertaken by the KHOJ team, with eminent historians, for close to three decades. To label our work as ‘hate mongering’ is pathetic, given especially that senior and prominent persons in this government, cabinet and also Members of Parliament have used hate speech and hate writing as tools to divide the Indian population while occupying prominent positions in government and Parliament since 2014.
 
At the outset, we would like to state that we express our serious concern over being asked to respond to allegations against Sabrang Trust/Teesta Setalvad supposedly based on a report prepared by an MHRD panel which we have yet to see (The Bari Committee Report).
 
We question the professional ethics of a section of the media which expects responses from us to the report's alleged findings but is unwilling to share the full report with us.

Also read: Niira Radia tapes capture Navika Kumar’s role in 2G scam

And listen (audio): The Navika Kumar, Timesnow (Times of India) reporter & Nira Radia Tape below::

 
In October 2016 another news channel, NewsX indulged in a similar exercise, today it is Times Now. Both electronic channels had copies of the report which ironically is not available in the public domain.
 
Following intermittent and threatening media reports of the possibility of yet another false criminal complaint against me, this time instigated by senior echelons of the government, I, Teesta Setalvad had written to the Minister for Human Resources Development (MHRD) Mr Prakash Javdekar, on the issue (attached here is a scanned copy of the letter). Unfortunately even the newspapers that had carried ‘exclusives’ about the possibility of a criminal complaint did not see it fit to carry our request to the minister for a copy of the said report (see links of newspapers)
 

Email to Minister MHRD:
 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Teesta Setalvad<teestateesta@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Communication (28.12.2016) to Hon Minister Prakash Javdekar from Teesta Setalvad
To: minister.hrd@gov.in

Dear Sir,
Good Morning. Attached is a letter for Hon MHRD Minister, Mr Prakash Javdekar which I would request is placed before him at the earliest.
The letter (scanned and attached) has been dispatched in the original by registered post and also faxed to the Ministry.

Yours Sincerely,
Teesta Setalvad
Activist, Journalist & Educationist

Response to False Charges

In response to the ‘charges’, the facts are as follows:

• A copy of the Trust Deed of Sabrang Trust was submitted to the MHRD Ministry while applying for the grant. The Trustees of Sabrang Trust continue to hold the view that the Trust’s aims and objects included educational activity and was therefore qualified to apply for the grant.
• An HRD Joint Evaluation team, comprising of an official each from the Centre and Maharashtra's education department, evaluated the KHOJ project before the grant was sanctioned. Another similar Joint Evaluation Team (JET) reviewed the progress of the project mid-way through the grant in February 2012. The JET concluded among other things: "Overall, the objectives and efforts under the KHOJ project are undoubtedly laudable since not only do they cater to the need to promote secularism and peace education, which should be a priority, but also since there is hardly any effort otherwise in mainstream schools to address these aspects. How crucial it is to reach out to the children especially of the urban poor from the slum areas comes across very strongly in the anecdotes shared by KHOJ teachers with the JET…"
• It may also be noted that the KHOJ-Education for a Plural India project was funded by MHRD under its "Scheme of Assistance under Innovative and Experimental Education Programmes — Grants to Voluntary agencies under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.  
• As to the allegation about the grant having been sanctioned despite objection from NCERT we are unable to comment on this as we are not privy to such communication, if any between MHRD and NCERT.
• As to allegation regarding “MATERIAL PUBLISHED BY TEESTA TRUST CONTAINS EXPLOSIVE LITERATURE WHICH REFLECTS HATRED AND VENOM” we vehemently deny her having produced any such material.
• In view of the above the question of “PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTS UNDER SECTION 153 A, 153 B OF IPC AGAINST TEESTA SETELVAD” is nothing but a politically motivated charge.  

Background:

This is close to a two-year old story. In March 2015, around the time that the bid of the Gujarat government to have us arrested failed (over yet another false criminal case where Javed Anand and I were both sought to be implicated), the overzealous Smriti Irani announced an MHRD probe against a project that Sabrang Trust had received for the KHOJ Education for Plural India programme. This project ran between 2010-2014 after receiving one extension. In typical proto-fascist style allegations have covered the infamous 'misappropriation of funds' to now spreading hatred. The charge of misappropriation obviously could not be proven and so it is now down to Teesta Setalvad 's views on the RSS and Murli Manohar Joshi according to the Indian Express!

What has also conveniently (and quietly) escaped public comment or notice that each and every false criminal complaint against me (Teesta Setalvad) after the Zakia Jafri case began to get traction (2010, 2011, 2013, 2015), were instigated by a former disgruntled employee of CJP, Raees Khan who has since been rewarded by the Modi regime with a position on the Central Wakf Board.
 
(In February 2016, in her inimitably inaccurate style the minister Irani even said that a Teacher's Reader authored by Teesta Setalvad and used in 2001 should be put down to the MHRD project under Mr Kapil Sibal when in fact the MHRD project only began in 2010!)
 
In any case, the KHOJ rendering of Shivaji, Jyotiba Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar is one that has been inspired by India's best historians that have traced Shivaji’s non-Brahmanical origins especially the hostility Shivaji faced when he could not be coronated due to his birth into the peasant castes.
 
1. Can book Teesta Setalvad for spreading hatred via writings: HRD panel
2. Kapil Sibal pressured officials, pushed for Teesta NGO funds: Report
3. Setalvad to face fresh probe by new panel
 
Motive
It seems apparent that with the Gujarat police having failed to substantiate its allegations of misappropriation of trust funds by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand, despite our having submitted over 20,000 pages of documentary evidence, and with the Union Home Ministry having instigated a 22-hour raid on the office and residence of the above mentioned by the CBI, yet another ministry has been tasked with maligning Sabrang Trust and hounding Teesta Setalvad on bogus charges.

There have been three sets of vindictive actions emanating from Delhi since the Modi regime acquired power. Before that Teesta Setalvad faced vindictive criminal cases within the state of Gujarat. First is the false criminal case by the Gujarat Crime Branch; second is the vindictive hounding by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the subsequent revocation of the FCRA renewal after it was first granted to both CJP and Sabrang trusts), the third is the criminal prosecution by the CBI on false charges of violation of FCR Act by Sabrang Communications (few are ever prosecuted on what, even if true is a civil charge and it is not irrelevant that the CBI is directly under the PMO) and now this.

(The earlier false cases and harassment of Teesta Setalvad by the Gujarat Police also continue, especially related to the twitter case despite an immediate apology by her within forty minutes of the tweet).
 
 

The post Media Trial: Stooges of the Establishment target Teesta Setalvad yet again, peddle canards in the name of Debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a scathing self critique of India's private prime time television news, especially the unprofessional conduct of well known and lauded anchors, Ravish Kumar of NDTV India had a Blackened Out Screen on the News Hour for 45 minutes on Friday, February 19.

The video of this radical programme is self explanatory. In simple and hard hitting Hindi, Ravish argues how the lynch mob is cultivated by the undemocratic and tyrannical conduct of television anchors in the name of debate.

"Yeh Andhera hi Aaj Ki TV ki Tasveer Hai." (The dark screen is the true image of TV today).

"Debate ke naam par Janmat ka Maut Ho Raha Hai." (People's voices are being throttled in the name of debate)

Also watch BBC's trending Video- "Debunking the Viral Video of 'sedition' that has captivated India" http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35605099
—————————

रवीश कुमार 

आप सबको पता ही है कि हमारा टीवी बीमार हो गया है। पूरी दुनिया में टीवी में टीबी हो गया है। हम सब बीमार हैं। मैं किसी दूसरे को बीमार बताकर खुद को डॉक्टर नहीं कह रहा। बीमार मैं भी हूं। पहले हम बीमार हुए अब आप हो रहे हैं। आपमें से कोई न कोई रोज़ हमें मारने पीटने और ज़िंदा जला देने का पत्र लिखता रहता है। उसके भीतर का ज़हर कहीं हमारे भीतर से तो नहीं पहुंच रहा। मैं डॉक्टर नहीं हूं। मैं तो ख़ुद ही बीमार हूं। मेरा टीवी भी बीमार है। डिबेट के नाम पर हर दिन का यह शोर शराबा आपकी आंखों में उजाला लाता है या अंधेरा कर देता है। आप शायद सोचते तो होंगे।

डिबेट से जवाबदेही तय होती है। लेकिन जवाबदेही के नाम पर अब निशानदेही हो रही है। टारगेट किया जा रहा है। इस डिबेट का आगमन हुआ था मुद्दों पर समझ साफ करने के लिए। लेकिन जल्दी ही डिबेट जनमत की मौत का खेल बन गया। जनमत एक मत का नाम नहीं है। जनमत में कई मत होते हैं। मगर यह डिबेट टीवी जनमत की वेरायटी को मार रहा है। एक जनमत का राज कायम करने में जुट गया है। जिन एंकरों और प्रवक्ताओं की अभिव्यक्ति की कोई सीमा नहीं है वो इस आज़ादी की सीमा तय करना चाहते हैं। कई बार ये सवाल खुद से और आपसे करना चाहिए कि हम क्या दिखा रहे हैं और आप क्यों देखते हैं। आप कहेंगे आप जो दिखाते हैं हम देखते हैं और हम कहते हैं आप जो देखते हैं वो हम दिखाते हैं। इसी में कोई नंबर वन है तो कोई मेरे जैसा नंबर टेन। कोई टॉप है तो कोई मेरे जैसा फेल। अगर टीआरपी हमारी मंज़िल है तो इसके हमसफ़र आप क्यों हैं। क्या टीआरपी आपकी भी मंज़िल है।

इसलिए हम आपको टीवी की उस अंधेरी दुनिया में ले जाना चाहते हैं जहां आप तन्हा उस शोर को सुन सकें। समझ सकें। उसकी उम्मीदों, ख़ौफ़ को जी सकें जो हम एंकरों की जमात रोज़ पैदा करती है।

आप इस चीख को पहचानिये। इस चिल्लाहट को समझिये। इसलिए मैं आपको अंधेरे में ले आया हूं। कोई तकनीकि ख़राबी नहीं है। आपका सिग्नल बिल्कुल ठीक है। ये अंधेरा ही आज के टीवी की तस्वीर है। हमने जानबूझ कर ये अंधेरा किया है। समझिये आपके ड्राईंग रूम की बत्ती बुझा दी है और मैं अंधेरे के उस एकांत में सिर्फ आपसे बात कर रहा हूं। मुझे पता है आज के बाद भी मैं वही करूंगा जो कर रहा हूं। कुछ नहीं बदलेगा, न मैं बदल सकता हूं। मैं यानी हम एंकर। तमाम एंकरों में एक मैं। हम एंकर चिल्लाने लगे हैं। धमकाने लगे हैं। जब हम बोलते हैं तो हमारी नसों में ख़ून दौड़ने लगता है। हमें देखते देखते आपकी रग़ों का ख़ून गरम होने लगा है। धारणाओं के बीच जंग है। सूचनाएं कहीं नहीं हैं। हैं भी तो बहुत कम हैं।

हमारा काम तरह तरह से सोचने में आपकी मदद करना है। जो सत्ता में है उससे सबसे अधिक सख़्त सवाल पूछना है। हमारा काम ललकारना नहीं है। फटकारना नहीं है। दुत्कारना नहीं है। उकसाना नहीं है। धमकाना नहीं है। पूछना है। अंत अंत तक पूछना है। इस प्रक्रिया में हम कई बार ग़लतियां कर जाते हैं। आप माफ भी कर देते हैं। लेकिन कई बार ऐसा लगता है कि हम ग़लतियां नहीं कर रहे हैं। हम जानबूझ कर ऐसा कर रहे हैं। इसलिए हम आपको इस अंधेरी दुनिया में ले आए हैं। आप हमारी आवाज़ को सुनिये। हमारे पूछने के तरीकों में फर्क कीजिए। परेशान और हताश कौन नहीं है। सबके भीतर की हताशा को हम हवा देने लगे तो आपके भीतर भी गरम आंधी चलने लगेगी। जो एक दिन आपको भी जला देगी।

जेएनयू की घटना को जिस तरह से टीवी चैनलों में कवर किया गया है उसे आप अपने अपने दल की पसंद की हिसाब से मत देखिये। उसे आप समाज और संतुलित समझ की प्रक्रिया के हिसाब से देखिये। क्या आप घर में इसी तरह से चिल्ला कर अपनी पत्नी से बात करते हैं। क्या आपके पिता इसी तरह से आपकी मां पर चीखते हैं। क्या आपने अपनी बहनों पर इसी तरह से चीखा है। ऐसा क्यों हैं कि एंकरों का चीखना बिल्कुल ऐसा ही लगता है। प्रवक्ता भी एंकरों की तरह धमका रहे हैं। सवाल कहीं छूट जाता है। जवाब की किसी को परवाह नहीं होती। मारो मारो, पकड़ो पकड़ो की आवाज़ आने लगती है। एक दो बार मैं भी गुस्साया हूं। चीखा हूं और चिल्लाया हूं। रात भर नींद नहीं आई। तनाव से आंखें तनी रही। अक्सर सोचता हूं कि हमारी बिरादरी के लोग कैसे चीख लेते हैं। चिल्ला लेते हैं। अगर चीखने चिल्लाने से जवाबदेही तय होती तो रोज़ प्रधानमंत्री को चीखना चाहिए। रोज़ सेनाध्यक्ष को टीवी पर आकर चीखना चाहिए। हर किसी को हर किसी पर चीखना चाहिए। क्या टीवी को हम इतनी छूट देंगे कि वो हमें बताने की जगह धमकाने लगे। हममें से कुछ को छांट कर भीड़ बनाने लगे और उस भीड़ को ललकारने लगे कि जाओ उसे खींच कर मार दो। वो गद्दार है। देशद्रोही है। एंकर क्या है। जो भीड़ को उकसाता हो, भीड़ बनाता हो वो क्या है। पूरी दुनिया में चीखने वाले एंकरों की पूछ बढ़ती जा रही है। आपको लगता है कि आपके बदले चीख कर वो ठीक कर रहा है। दरअसल वो ठीक नहीं कर रहा है।

कई प्रवक्ता गाली देते हैं। मार देने की बात करते हैं। गोली मार देने की बात करते हैं। ये इसलिए करते हैं कि आप डर जाएं। आप बिना सवाल किये उनसे सहमत हो जाएं। हमारा टीवी अब आए दिन करने लगा है। एंकर रोज़ भाषण झाड़ रहे हैं। जैसे मैं आज झाड़ रहा हूं। वो देशभक्ति के प्रवक्ता हो गए हैं। हर बात को देशभक्ति और गद्दारी के चश्मे से देखा जा रहा है। सैनिकों की शहादत का राजनीतिक इस्तेमाल हो रहा है। उनके बलिदान के नाम पर किसी को भी गद्दार ठहराया जा रहा है। इसी देश में जंतर मंतर पर सैनिकों के कपड़े फाड़ दिये गए। उनके मेडल खींचे गए। उन सैनिकों में भी कोई युद्ध में घायल है। किसी ने अपने शरीर का हिस्सा गंवाया है। कौन जाता है उनके आंसू पोंछने।

शहादत सर्वोच्च है लेकिन क्या शहादत का राजनीतिक इस्तेमाल भी सर्वोच्च है। कश्मीर में रोज़ाना भारत विरोधी नारे लगते हैं। आज के इंडियन एक्सप्रेस में किसी पुलिस अधिकारी ने कहा है कि हम रोज़ गिरफ्तार करने लगें तो कितनों को गिरफ्तार करेंगे। बताना चाहिए कि कश्मीर में पिछले एक साल में पीडीपी बीजेपी सरकार ने क्या भारत विरोधी नारे लगाने वालों को गिरफ्तार किया है। हां तो उनकी संख्या क्या है। वहां तो आए दिन कोई पाकिस्तान के झंडे दिखा देता है, कोई आतंकवादी संगठन आईएस के भी।

कश्मीर की समस्या का भारत के अन्य हिस्सों में रह रहे मुसलमानों से क्या लेना देना है। कोई लेना देना नहीं है। कश्मीर की समस्या इस्लाम की समस्या नहीं है। कश्मीर की समस्या की अपनी जटिलता है। उसे सरकारों पर छोड़ देना चाहिए। पीडीपी अफज़ल गुरु को शहीद मानती है। पीडीपी ने अभी तक नहीं कहा कि अफज़ल गुरु वही है जो बीजेपी कहती है यानी आतंकवादी है। इसके बाद भी बीजेपी पीडीपी को अपनी सरकार का मुखिया चुनती है। यह भी दुखद है कि इस बेहतरीन राजनीतिक प्रयोग को जेएनयू में कुछ छात्रों को आतंकवादी बताने के नाम पर कमतर बताया जा रहा है। बीजेपी ने कश्मीर में जो किया वो एक शानदार राजनीतिक प्रयोग है। इतिहास प्रधानमंत्री मोदी को इसके लिए अच्छी जगह देगा। हां उसके लिए बीजेपी ने अपने राजनीतिक सिद्धांतों को कुछ समय के लिए छोड़ा उसे लेकर सवाल होते रहेंगे। अफज़ल गुरु अगर जेएनयू में आतंकवादी है तो श्रीनगर में क्या है। इन सब जटिल मसलों को हम हां या ना कि शक्ल में बहस करेंगे तो तर्कशील समाज नहीं रह जाएंगे। एक भीड़ बन कर रह जाएंगे। यह लोकतंत्र के लिए अच्छा नहीं है।

बहरहाल अब जब चैनलों की दुनिया में हर नियम धाराशायी हो गए हैं। पहले हमें सिखाया गया था कि जो भड़काने की बात करे, उकसाने की बात करे, सामाजिक द्वेष की बात करे उसका बयान न दिखाना है न छापना है। अब क्या करेंगे जब एंकर ही इस तरह की बात कर रहे हैं। प्रवक्ताओं को कुछ भी बोलने की छूट दे रहे हैं। कन्हैया के भाषण के वीडियो को चैनलों ने खतरनाक तरीके से चलाया। बिना जांच किये कि कौन सा वीडियो सही उसे चलाया गया।

अब टीवी टुडे और एबीपी चैनल ने बताया है कि वीडियो फर्ज़ी हैं। कुछ वीडियों में कांट छांट है तो किसी में ऊपर से नारों को थोपा गया है। अगर वीडियो में इतना अंतर है तो यह जांच का विषय है। इसके पहले तक कैसे हम सबको नतीजे पर पहुंचने के लिए मजबूर किया गया। गली गली में जेएनयू के विरोध में नारे लगाए गए। छात्रों को आतंकवादी और देशद्रोही कहा गया।

क्या अब कोई चैनल उन वीडियो की जवाबदेही लेगा। क्या अब हम एंकर उतने ही घंटे चीख चीख कर बतायेंगे कि वीडियो सही नहीं थे। विवादित थे। किसी में कन्हैया गरीबी से, सामंतवाद से आज़ादी की बात कर रहा है तो किसी ने यह काट कर दिखाया कि वो सिर्फ आज़ादी की बात कर रहा है। तो क्या आज़ादी की बात करना कैसे मान लिया गया कि वो भारत से आज़ादी की बात कर रहा है। हमारे सहयोगी मनीष आज कन्हैया के घर गए थे। इतना ग़रीब परिवार है कि उनके पास पत्रकारों को चाय पिलाने की हैसियत नहीं है। उन्हें मुश्किल में देख मनीष कुमार वापस चले गए। इस ग़रीबी को झेलने वाला कोई छात्र नेता अगर ग़रीबी से आज़ादी की बात नहीं करेगा तो क्या उद्योगपतियों की गोद में बैठे हमारे राजनेता करेंगे।

कन्हैया कुमार की तस्वीरों को बदल-बदल कर चलाया गया ताकि लोग उसे एक आतंकवादी और गद्दार के रूप में देख सकें। एक तस्वीर में वो भाषण दे रहा है तो उसी तस्वीर में पीछे भारत का कटा छंटा झंडा जोड़ दिया गया है। फोटोशॉप तकनीक से आजकल खूब होता है। यह कितना ख़तरनाक है। सोशल मीडिया पर कौन लोग समूह बनाकर इसे हवा दे रहे थे। कौन लोग सबूत और गवाही से पहले ओमर ख़ालिद को आतंकवादी गद्दार बताने लगे। उसे भी भागना नहीं चाहिए था। सामने आकर बताना चाहिए था कि उसने क्या भाषण दिया और क्यों दिया। कन्हैया और ख़ालिद में यही अंतर है पर शायद जिस तरह से भीड़ कन्हैया के प्रति उदार है ख़ालिद को यह छूट नहीं मिलती। फिर भी अगर ख़ालिद ने ऐसा कुछ कहा तो उसे सामना करना चाहिए था। हालत यह है कि खालिद को आतंकवादी बताने के पोस्टर जगह जगह लगा दिये गए हैं। अब अगर उसका वीडियो फर्ज़ी निकल गया तो क्या होगा। क्या वीडियो के सत्यापन का इंतज़ार नहीं किया जाना चाहिए।

इसीलिए हमने आज इस स्क्रीन को काला कर दिया है। हम आज आपको तरह तरह की आवाज़ सुनायेंगे। हो सकता है आपमें से कुछ लोग चैनल बदल कर चले जायेंगे।
 
यह भी तो हो सकता है कि आपमें से कुछ लोग अंत अंत तक उन आवाज़ों को सुनेंगे जो हफ्ते से आपके भीतर घर कर गई है। पहले हम आपको अलग अलग चैनलों के स्टुडियो में जो बातें कहीं गईं वो सुनाना चाहते हैं। नाम और पहचान में मेरी दिलचस्पी नहीं है क्योंकि हो सकता है ऐसा मैंने भी किया हो। ऐसा मुझसे भी हो जाए। पत्रकार तो पत्रकार, प्रवक्ताओं ने जिस तरह एंकरों पर धावा बोला है वो भी कम भयानक नहीं है। कहीं पत्रकार धावा बोल रहे थे, कहीं प्रवक्ता। लेकिन पत्रकारों ने देशभक्ति के नाम पर गद्दारों की जो परिभाषा तय की है वो बेहद खतरनाक है। मेरा मकसद सिर्फ आपको सचेत करना है। आप सुनिये। ग़ौर से सुनिये। महसूस कीजिए कि इन्हें सुनते हुए आपका ख़ून कब ख़ौलता है। कब आप उत्तेजित हो जाते हैं। यह भी ध्यान रखिये कि अभी तक कोई भी तथ्य साबित नहीं हुआ है। जैसा कि दो चैनलों ने बताया है कि वीडियो के कई संस्करण हैं। इसलिए इसके आधार पर तुरंत कोई निष्कर्ष पर नहीं पहुंचा जा सकता। आपके स्क्रीन पर यह अंधेरा पत्रकारिता का पश्चाताप है। जिसमें हम सब शामिल है। हम फिर से बता दें कि आप मुझे देख नहीं पा रहे हैं। कोई तकनीकि खराबी नहीं है। ये आवाज़ आपके ज़हन तक पहुंचाने की कोशिश भर है। कि हम सुन सकें कि हम क्या बोलते हैं। कैसे बोलते हैं और बोलने से क्या होता है।
साभार – एनडीटीवी 
http://khabar.ndtv.com/news/blogs/prime-time-intro-that-we-can-hear-what-we-say-1279272?pfrom=home-khabar 

(For our readers/viewers unfamiliar with Hindi language, we are working on a transcript of Ravish Kumar's programme – Editors).

The post Darkness on India’s Prime Time News: Ravish Kumar’s Scathing Critique appeared first on SabrangIndia.