Press Council of India vide its order dated November 15, 2022 censured a local evening newspaper of Mysuru called ‘Star of Mysore’ for publishing an editorial where it called the Muslim community in India, ‘bad apples’ that the country needs to get rid of.

In April 2020, Siddarth KJ of ‘Campaign Against Hate Speech’ had filed a complaint against ‘Star of Mysore’ for publishing provocative editorial titled ‘Bad apples in the basket’.

Advocating for action against the Muslim community, the editorial had stated ‘the ideal solution to the problem created by bad apples is to get rid of them’. In this regard, ‘Campaign Against Hate Speech’, issued a press release whereby it hailed the PCI order and said, “This order of the PCI, even though coming after nearly two and a half years of filing of the complaint, follows observations by various high courts of India that the Tablighi Jamaat had been unjustly condemned as responsible for the spread of the pandemic. The vile and hateful reportage by news media, particularly in Karnataka had vitiated the public sphere to such an extent that many Muslims had faced abuse and even violence during the first wave of the pandemic.”

The enquiry committee of PCI observed that the editorial targeted the Muslim community. “though the community is not being specifically named, the indications are found in certain sentences of the article,” the order reads. The committee further pointed out that the editorial states, “the nation is currently hosting an annoying 18 percent of its population self-identifying as rotten apples”. The editorial further reads, “An ideal solution to the problem created by bad apples is to get rid of them, as the former leader of Singapore did a few decades ago or as the leadership in Israel is currently doing”

The Committee opined that the editorial points towards a particular community and it was written in the context of the corona pandemic and that it is unfair to blame a particular community for the spread of the pandemic. “there were several lapses during the relevant period and we cannot identify people belonging to a certain community as being responsible for those lapses, the order reads”.

 The committee refused to accept the contentions of the newspaper that the editorial had been published in ‘good faith’ and had been published in the context of the coronavirus pandemic to caution readers against those not following safety protocols.

The Press should not indulge in such divisive acts, the Committee stated. “it should desist from publishing inflammatory writing which will fan the flames of communalism,” the committee opined.

After perusing the apology published by the Editor, the Committee was of the opinion that the same was tendered because a mob surrounded the newspaper’s office and thus deemed  it to be not genuine.

The PCI, after perusing the committee’s recommendations accepted the report along with the recommendations and adopted the same, thus censuring the newspaper.

The PCI order may be read here:

The Press Release of Campaign Against Hate Speech may be read here:

Related:

Real Impact, Real Change: CJP’s year of monitoring violations: a review

NBDSA: Complaint filed against Times Now for ‘Madrassa Jihad’ show

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

The post PCI censures ‘Star of Mysore’ newspaper for anti-Muslim editorial appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, a 72-year-old former Supreme Court judge, has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Press Council of India (PCI). A committee comprising Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and PCI member Prakash Dubey, has reportedly approved her appointment as the PCI chairperson at a meeting held on Tuesday.

In exercise of powers under Section 5(2) and 6(1) of the Press Council of India Act 1978, the Central Government notified the appointment of Justice Desai as the PCI Chairperson and the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notification in this regard today, reported LiveLaw.

Justice Desai’s career so far

Justice Desai began her career in 1973 when she started practicing as a lawyer in Bombay High Court. She then went on to become a public prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra and eventually served as a judge on the Bombay High Court until 2011 before being appointed as the Supreme Court Judge on September 13, 2011. It is pertinent to note that she was the fifth woman to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge in India.

In a unique instance, she, along with Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, formed an “all women bench” which heard matters for the day in April 2013 due to non-availability of another judge who was supposed to be part of the bench, reported Mint.

Justice Desai was the one who took initiative as a prosecutor along with Justice JN Patel in 1993 to set up the special court at Arthur Road to try the serial bomb blasts case.

After her retirement, she initially served as the Chairperson of Election Appellate Tribunal and later as the Chairperson of the Advance Ruling Authority [Income Tax]. She has also headed an eight-person Search Committee constituted by the Government of India under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 to search for and recommend a Chairperson and members for India’s anti-corruption ombudsman agency, the Lokpal.

Justice Desai presides over a 5-member panel recently formed by the Uttarakhand government to examine the relevant personal laws in the State and to implement Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as reported by The Indian Express.

As published in the Bar Association of India’s journal, in her farewell speech organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Desai said, “I am often asked how smooth my journey to the highest court in the country was. I want to answer that question today. It was very difficult at times, even turbulent, making me wonder whether it was a mistake to enter this profession. A few kind individuals and my determination saw me through.”

She had recently headed the Delimitation Commission on Jammu and Kashmir, which was set up to redraw the assembly constituencies of the Union Territory. As the head of the Delimitation Commission, she oversaw the addition of five assembly constituencies (AC) to Jammu Division and one to Kashmir. Five Jammu and Kashmir Lok Sabha members, three from the National Conference and two from the BJP, were associate members to the commission. Though the Commission was set up in March 2020, after the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill in Parliament in August 2019, and was asked to complete its work within a year, it was granted an extension of one more year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and a second extension of two months at the end of this period.

When J&K was a state, Jammu had 37 ACs, Kashmir had 46 and Ladakh had four – taking the state total to 87. After the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh became a separate union territory (UT) as did J&K. After delimitation, total ACs in J&K stand at 90 – 43 in Jammu and 47 in Kashmir division. The recommendations came into effect on May 20, 2022.

After delimitation, some critics claim that the seat allocation is disproportionately in favour of the Jammu region. As this extremely informative video by Newslaundry explains, before delimitation, Jammu had 44-5 percent of the seats and had also nearly 43.8 percent of the voting population, and Kashmir had 55 percent seats with 56 percent of the population. After delimitation, Jammu has cornered approximately 48 percent of ACs, while Kashmir’s chunk has been cut to roughly 52 percent.

As the 2021 Census had to be suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the recommendations were made based on 2011 Census figures. Now, it is well known, that Jammu has a predominantly Hindu population, while Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. This has given rise to concerns about communally polarising vote bank politics. The recommendations are also seen as controversial given how different interest groups have moved court over the validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act and the abrogation of Article 370. The National Conference opposed the recommendations, dubbing them as “gerrymandering”, and even the PDP was not in favour of it.

Notable judicial pronouncements by Justice Desai

1)    Supreme Court allows voters to cast negative vote by pressing a button saying none of the candidates is worthy of his vote

In September 2013, a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi of the Supreme Court of India, held that citizens have right to cast negative vote rejecting all candidates contesting polls, a decision which would encourage people not satisfied with contestants to turn up for voting.

The Bench reportedly said the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option “will accelerate effective political participation in the present state of the democratic system and the voters will in fact be empowered.” The right to cast a negative vote, “at a time when electioneering is in full swing, will foster the purity of the electoral process and also fulfil one of its objectives, namely, wide participation of people.”

2)    Registration of FIR in cognisable offences was mandatory

In November 2013, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the then Chief Justice P Sathasivam and comprising of Justices BS Chauhan, Ranjana Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and SA Bobde, held that registration of FIR in cognisable offence is a must and action must be taken against police officials for not lodging a case in such offences.

The Bench reportedly said, “We hold registration of FIR mandatory under Section 154 of the (Criminal Procedure) Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. A police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register FIRs if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence.”

3)    Striking down Haj subsidy

In May 2012, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Altamas Kabir and Ranjana Prakash Desai directed the Centre to gradually reduce the amount of subsidies being given to Haj pilgrims so that within 10 years it is eliminated, and the money was used for the “uplift of the community in education and other indices of social development,” reported Mint.

While hearing an appeal filed by the Centre challenging a Bombay High Court judgement which had directed the Ministry of External Affairs to allow certain private operators to handle 800 of the 11,000 pilgrims earmarked under the VIP quota subsidised by the government, the bench expanded the purview of the plea and decided to look into the legality of the government’s policy on granting subsidies to Haj pilgrims, reported the Hindu.

“We have no doubt that a very large majority of Muslims applying to the Haj Committee would not be aware of the economics of their pilgrimage. And if all the facts are made known, a good many of the pilgrims would not be very comfortable in the knowledge that their Haj is funded to a substantial extent by the government,” reportedly said the bench.

4)    Ajmal Kasab:

In February 2011, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R V More upheld the death sentence to Ajmal Kasab in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case. As reported by the New Indian Express, it took less than two minutes for Justice Ranjana Desai to read out the confirmation of the death sentence to the Pakistani terrorist, terming the case as “rarest of rare” and observing that the 24-year-old was beyond scope of any rehabilitation.

The bench reportedly held Kasab guilty on four counts, including waging a war against the nation, killing dozens of passengers at CST and murdering senior police officers like Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. The bench observed that the court was more than confident that the death penalty should be awarded to Kasab.

In light of his acts, she reportedly stated, “The lone mitigating circumstance of his young age must recede in the background. The brutality, perversity and cruelty exhibited by Kasab by committing multiple murders of innocent men, women, children, aged persons and policemen without provocation for a motive which has no moral justification makes this case the gravest case of extreme culpability.”

5)    Seize licensed arms during elections

In 2009, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice Rajesh Ketkar, gave direction to the Election Commission (EC) to seize licenced arms from people during elections. The Court observed, “This order is issued under Article 324 of the Constitution of India which vests Superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. Under clause 6, a direction is issued that prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code be issued banning the carrying of licensed arms as soon as an election is announced and should be effective till declaration of results.”

6)    Guidelines to curb baby thefts in BMC hospitals

In 2009, the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice Ranjana Desai and Justice R G Ketkar framed guidelines to to be implemented by the government and the BMC to prevent baby thefts in public hospitals.

The court reportedly laid out 234 remedial measures including installation of a computerized biometrics system which would record footprints, fingerprints and birthmarks, if any, within two hours of the child’s birth or admission.

Related:

Delimitation delayed in J&K
Uttarakhand: Pushkar Singh Dhami got booted out, yet plans to bring in UCC?
NHRC chairmanship contender Justice Arun Mishra’s legacy

The post Meet Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, the new Chairperson of Press Council of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Press Council of India (PCI) has taken suo-motu action after concerns were raised by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chief Mehbooba Mufti on “intimidation and harassment of journalists” in Jammu and Kashmir. The PCI has constituted a three-member Fact Finding Committee to visit and investigate allegations of intimidation and harassment of journalists in the Union Territory.

Mehbooba Mufti had written to both the Press Council of India (PCI) and Editors Guild of India (EGI) on the “intimidation, snooping and harassment of journalists in J&K” and had alleged “that reporting truth to power is being criminalized in J&K.” She had asked the media bodies to send a fact-finding team to the region to investigate.

The veteran politician had reportedly alleged that the “harassment and intimidation of journalists has taken place after revocation of Articles 370 and 35A and bifurcation of J&K state into two Union Territories by centre on August 5, 2019.” After the probe by a fact finding committee was announces she posted the statement on social media and hope that “the local administration ensures their full cooperation so that this committee can discharge its duty.” 

Thankful to the @PressCouncil_IN for their decision to constitute a fact finding committee to probe about journalists being harassed in J&K. Hope the local administration ensures their full co-operation so that this committee can discharge its duty. pic.twitter.com/gYiqXlCbJL

— Mehbooba Mufti (@MehboobaMufti) September 29, 2021

According to reports, the Fact Finding Committee includes Prakash Dubey, Convenor and Group Editor Dainik Bhaskar, Gurbir Singh of The New Indian Express and Dr Suman Gupta of Jan Morcha, who will also regulate the fact finding procedure. The PCI also urged the J&K government to extend its cooperation and assistance to the Fact Finding Committee for the discharge of its function, saying, “The Fact Finding Committee is required to make a thorough probe into the matter holding discussion with the concerned authorities and the affected journalists and collect such information as it deems fit to submit its report to the Council at the earliest.” 

Related:

Why are govt authorities targeting Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin?

Intercepted, questioned, harassed: A typical day for Kashmiri journalists

Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin’s home ransacked

Kashmir journalist assaulted, harassed by Cyber Police, for article on cyberbullying  

End harassment of Kashmiri journalists, lawyers: Kashmir Reading Room

The post Jammu and Kashmir: Press Council of India to investigate intimidation of journalists  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Press Council of India has demanded an explanation from the Tripura government on allegations of attacks on journalists made by the Assembly of Journalists (AOJ), which is a forum for protection of media rights. The AOJ has alleged that over 20 scribes were attacked in Tripura after Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb’s controversial remarks  on the media during a programme last year in September. It was widely reported when on September 11, 2020, Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb’s while speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Tripura’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Sabroom had said that a section of “over-excited newspapers” were “trying to confuse people” over Covid-19 and added that “neither history nor I will forgive them”.

Journalists had called him out on this comment and said that the CM seemed to have issued a ‘threat’ to the media and that it was an “assault on press freedom”. Deb had reportedly responded that while he “didn’t mean to hurt anyone,” he “would continue to protect the best interests of people of Tripura against any attempts at misleading” the people. It was reported that the CM’s media advisor, Sanjoy Mishra had also said his comments were misinterpreted. However, according to local media, allegations of various attacks on journalists from working in the region, were reported.

The AOJ took cognisance of that and had recently issued a statement that said, anti social elements have been emboldened to attack the media after the CM’s speech. The AOJ stated: “The chief minister (Biplab Kumar Deb) had threatened the media during an event at Sabroom sub-division on September 11. Encouraged by this, anti-socials and miscreants sheltered under the umbrella of the ruling party are organising constant attacks on the media. At least 23 journalists have been attacked in Tripura in the last six months following the chief minister’s threat.”  A delegation of the Assembly of Journalists had met at the Agartala State Guest House on Sunday, and informed Press Council of India representatives “about the increasing attacks on journalists and news media in the state.”

https://www.facebook.com/assemblyofjournalists/posts/209565894255000

Now the Press Council of India (PCI) has sought a response from the Tripura government regarding purported complaints of these attacks on journalists in the past six months. According to media reports, PCI secretary Anupama Bhatnagar has written to Tripura Chief secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police, and asked them to respond within two weeks. Media reports quoted the letter: “on consideration of the complaint, Chairman, Press Council of India has decided to take cognizance in the matter under provision of Regulations 14 (f) of Press Council ( Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 and I have been directed to request to file your comments in the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of this letter to enable the Council to determine further course of action in the matter.”  According to news reports, state Home Secretary Sharadindu Choudhury told the media on Saturday that the letter had been received “last week” and that a reply will be given soon.

Related

Scrap rules proposed to monitor digital media: Journalists’ organisations
HRDA appeals to NHRC over illegal arrest of journalist Saleem Khan
Tripura HC quashes FIR against man charged for misleading FB post about pro-
From Watchdog to Lapdog, Weaponisation of the India Media

The post Press Council of India demands explanation from Tripura Govt on allegations of attacks on journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Scroll.in
 

The post Shocking: Press Council of India moves SC against press freedom in Kashmir. appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The editor of The Milli Gazette, Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan has alleged that the Modi government is hounding his publication and has launched a multi-pronged attack in an attempt to shut it down. While the community-oriented publication has tottered on the brink since inception for lack of adequate response and support from Muslims, the government moves, Dr Khan fears, are aimed at pushing it over the precipice.

On March 12 this year, The Milli Gazette published a news report filed by a freelance journalist, Pushp Sharma. Basing himself on one of the documents he had received from the Union Ayush Ministry in response to an RTI query, Sharma claimed that in its recruitment, the ministry had discriminated against Muslims.  

The ministry issued a press statement the same day claiming that the document Sharma relied on for his report was “fabricated” and that the report was “clearly aimed at causing chasm between different sections of society and promoting disharmony and mistrust with ulterior motives”.

In an email received by SabrangIndia, Dr Khan maintains that though the publication stood by the report it was “all-along ready to publish a rejoinder, statement or clarification should the ministry send it to us.” The ministry, however, chose to file a police complaint.

“As a result, the journalist (Pushp Sharma), who wrote that story, was mercilessly interrogated for days and later arrested and jailed for around two weeks. Now he is out on bail while the case takes its normal slow course in courts”.

While the case against Sharma follows its own course, Dr Khan alleges that the Press Council and the Delhi police are out to get the publication itself. The show cause notice issued to The Milli Gazette by the Delhi police is a step towards the declaration of the publication as illegal.

Set up by the Indian Parliament in 1966, the Press Council of India is a regulatory body with the power to censure a publication at worst. The Council’s suo motu action against The Milli Gazette, Dr Khan alleges is “unprecedented” as “an authority supposedly created to protect the freedom of press, was in fact throttling that same cherished freedom”.   

Here is the full text of the email sent out by Dr Khan:

During the 17 years of our existence, The Milli Gazette has faced many threats and challenges. I myself have received numerous death threats. MG’s continued losses, dwindling subscriptions due to our own website and a disinterest by the community too have been our problems which forced us twice to think of closing down MG though on second and third thoughts we refrained from taking such a drastic step knowing very well that, however feeble, our community needs this voice in English more than at any time in the past and this voice mattered not only in India but across the world.

Now, since March 12 this year, we are facing an existential threat from the Modi government following our publication of a report on discrimination against Muslims in the Ayush ministry recruitments based on an RTI reply which the said ministry denied.

It could have sent a rejoinder or, at worst, could have complained to the concerned regulatory authority, the Press Council of India in case we refused to publish its rejoinder. We were all-along ready to publish a rejoinder, statement or clarification should the ministry send it to us. Instead, it chose to file a police complaint.

As a result, the journalist (Pushp Sharma), who wrote that story, was mercilessly interrogated for days and later arrested and jailed for around two weeks. Now he is out on bail while the case takes its normal slow course in courts.

Soon, on April 21, the Press Council of India took suo motu cognisance and opened a case against The Milli Gazette. This action was unprecedented as an authority supposedly created to protect the freedom of press, was in fact throttling that same cherished freedom. We have replied to PCI’s letter and the case continues. Our next hearing at the PCI is on July 12.

A third bolt came from the Delhi police (directly controlled by the Union home ministry) when DCP Licensing wrote to us on May 30 as to why our newspaper declaration should not be cancelled. Cancellation of the declaration means the newspaper will become illegal. We replied without fail to this show-cause notice and are still waiting for further clarifications from the DCP Licensing despite the passage of over three weeks on our hand-delivered reply.

All these drastic steps were taken to deal with an ordinary report which could have been tackled through a press statement like the one CBI issued on 15 June this year describing a Times of India report about CBI’s soft-pedalling over the Vyapam scandal. The CBI issued a press statement the same day saying the report is “speculative & presumptuous and hence, is strongly denied.” Strong words indeed, but we are not aware if CBI, PCI or DCP Licensing have sprung into action against the Times of India. Do we have two standards: one for small publications and another for big giants?

This three-pronged attack on MG simply shows the desperation of the Modi government to silence this little nagging bird. We are fighting and will continue to fight against this injustice through all legal venues open to us. But should the Modi government succeed in silencing this feeble voice, we will call it a day and will leave it to history to remember this as yet another colossal injustice to the freedom of Press the like of which was inflicted by the colonial rulers on Maulana Azad’s Al-Balagh and Muhammad Ali’s Hamdard and Comrade.  

The post ‘Modi Government is after the Milli Gazette’: Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan, Editor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“When a lovestruck 14-year-old girl decided to run away from home to meet her boyfriend, she had no inkling of the horror she was in for.”  That was the opening sentence of a news report about the repeated rape of the teenager by two Indian Army jawans on a train to Amritsar in December 2015.

“It all started with Facebook – initially by sending friend requests to each other, followed by messages and then late night chats,” the story continued. “For the minor girl, that was perhaps enough to fall in love with a boy who actually hailed from Punjab's Ludhiana district.”

Once again a media report on rape diminished the seriousness of the crime by highlighting extraneous details about the young survivor instead of focusing on the most relevant information: in this case, the sexual assault of a minor girl by two soldiers.  As a letter to the editor from the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) asked, “How does the girl being lovestruck connect with the rape at all? How does it matter where she met her boyfriend –  on Facebook or elsewhere – or even that she had one?” 

The fact that the multiple violent attacks on the girl amounted to statutory rape under the law was evidently missed in the process, as was the fact that the crime was all the more heinous because the perpetrators belonged to the armed forces, which presumably exist to protect citizens of the country, not harm them.

The report was accompanied by a lurid illustration which, as the NWMI letter pointed out, contributed to the sensational nature of the story as told. 

It is difficult to avoid a feeling of déjà vu every time such flawed reports on rape surface.  Issues relating to media coverage of sexual assault have been discussed and debated for decades, at least from the campaign against rape sparked off in the early 1980s by the Supreme Court judgment in what has come to be known as the Mathura rape case onwards. 

Media coverage of rape and the campaign against it was among the five topics included in the 1994 book, “Whose News?  The Media and Women’s Issues.” When Kalpana Sharma and I revisited media coverage of sexual violence in India for the second edition of the book in the mid-2000s, we found that rape was back on the media agenda – a quarter of a century after it had become a legitimate subject for media attention – thanks to a number of high-profile cases in the political and commercial capitals of the country, Delhi and Mumbai.  Our review revealed that media coverage of rape in the new millennium was “something of a mixed bag, ranging from the serious, concerned and gender-sensitive through glib, superficial and celebrity-oriented to sensational, irresponsible and intrusive.”  

That assessment is still more or less applicable today, a decade later, although heightened competition in the burgeoning news media space has added new dimensions to the coverage.  Privately-owned Indian television news channels – with their characteristic high-pitched reporting and confrontational panel discussions that invariably generate more heat than light – now play a dominant role in setting the public agenda.  This has had an impact on the style and substance of news coverage in large sections of the print media as well. 

Critiques of media coverage of sexual violence in general and rape in particular tend to focus primarily on sins of commission.  While some of these – such as sensationalism and prurience – are professionally indefensible, others are more complicated:  the amount and type of detail to be included in news reports, for example. 

Take the question of the right to privacy.  The Indian Penal Code, as well as the limited ethical guidelines issued by the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasters’ Association, stress the need to protect the privacy of victims and survivors of sexual violence.  Death does not automatically release the media from this obligation:  according to the law, “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim” can be published only if the next of kin authorises it in writing. 

In the case of a young woman who went missing near Chennai one mid-February night in 2014, her name, age, place of origin and employer were made public the day her body was finally discovered over a week later.  Of the reports I scanned, only The Hindu persisted in referring to her as an employee of Tata Consultancy Services, providing no further details.  In contrast, some media reports even included her photograph with no attempt at morphing.

Most media outlets chose to report that the woman was raped before the results of forensic analysis, which alone could establish the nature of the crime, were available – presumably going by information provided by the police about confessions by the first two men arrested.  Again, The Hindu was an exception.  Some reports included several details about the likely sequence of events before, during and after the crime, obviously relying purely on police sources yet again. 

Take the question of the right to privacy.  The Indian Penal Code, as well as the limited ethical guidelines issued by the Press Council of India and the News Broadcasters’ Association, stress the need to protect the privacy of victims and survivors of sexual violence.  Death does not automatically release the media from this obligation:  according to the law, “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim” can be published only if the next of kin authorises it in writing.

Besides the over-arching journalistic principles of accuracy, fairness and independence, the key precept that should inform decisions about necessary and unwarranted details is, surely, the interest of justice.  Many details now routinely included in news reports on rape cases serve no constructive purpose and may, in fact, have negative consequences. The references to a teenaged survivor being “lovestruck,” having met her boyfriend on Facebook, and so on, in the report described above represent a case in point.

The controversy over when a legitimate and ethical, if aggressive, pursuit of truth in the interest of justice turns into an illegitimate, unprincipled trial by media that can result in miscarriage of justice raises troublesome questions which call for serious reflection even if there are no easy answers.  The tragic death of social activist Khurshid Anwar, who committed suicide in December 2013 following charges of rape – possibly pushed to the edge by a television programme – underlines the grave consequences that thoughtless or irresponsible journalism, however well-intentioned, can lead to. 

The good news is that there is growing debate among journalists themselves on issues concerning media coverage of sexual violence in general, and rape in particular.  Such welcome introspection has led to several attempts – by journalists or with their involvement – to evolve practical dos and don’ts that recognise the realities of reporting news in an ever more competitive media environment, but seek to promote ethical practice despite the undeniable, disagreeable pressures that most journalists, especially reporters, have to contend with.

However, the media’s equally critical sins of omission have yet to receive the attention they demand if coverage of sexual assault, including rape, is to serve its logical purpose:  justice in general, gender justice in particular and, ultimately, a necessary decline in the prevalence of such violence.

A collaborative academic study focussing on “sexual violence journalism” in four leading English language publications before and after December 2012 concluded that, although this section of the press has made “small but important progress with respect to reporting on gender justice,” the news media need to move beyond “the incident and crime cycle,” and away from the sensational aspects of such crimes, to progress towards “gender justice sensitive reporting.”

What would this involve?  To begin with, an acknowledgement – especially by decision-makers in the media – that coverage of gender-related events and issues, including sexual violence, is serious business.  Those reporting and commenting on the subject need to acquaint themselves with the complexities of the subject, the history of efforts to deal with these issues, and the debates and actions that have taken place in the past (in India from at least 1980 onwards).

In the wake of the December 2012 gang-rape, for example, some sections of the media spearheaded a vociferous crusade calling for capital punishment in cases of sexual assault. There is little doubt that the relentless, emotive, campaign-style coverage and impassioned, impatient television debates contributed to the apparent manufacture of consent among vocal sections of the media-consuming public about the desirability of the death penalty for rape, if only in high-profile cases.  Little attention was paid to the fact that women’s organisations with long experience in tackling gender violence, as well as other groups and individuals committed to human rights, oppose the death penalty on the ground that it is not only wrong in principle but also unlikely to work in practice, especially in terms of reducing the incidence of sexual assault or increasing the conviction rate or both. 

The excessive and blinkered focus on retributive justice also obscures genuine hurdles in the path of justice of any kind:  prejudice, ignorance, negligence, incompetence and worse within the investigative, legal and judicial systems. The media would serve the cause of justice better if they spent time and energy on creatively exposing these impediments instead of chasing elusive “exclusives” that are often based on unconfirmed (often incorrect), inconsequential or salacious trivia that shed no light on the matter and often violate the rights of the human beings involved. 

Data on sexual crimes represent another area crying out for critical attention.  Apart from the fact that undiscerning use of statistics is often misleading, it appears that National Crime Records Bureau data themselves may be unintentionally deceptive, going by a report in The Hindu in October 2013 flagging a statistical flaw that could mean that even the December 2012 gang rape would not be counted in NCRB data on rape. Surprisingly, this sensational revelation, which was not denied, caused barely a ripple in the media.

Sometimes startling statistics are blandly presented when further examination is clearly required.  For example, according to data attributed to the Delhi police a couple of years ago, 95 per cent of the accused in rape cases were less than 25 years old.  If this was indeed true it obviously has major implications for efforts to deal with the problem of sexual violence. If it was not, why was such incredible data released by the police?  Or was police information misreported by the media? 

The law is another area that requires more informed reporting.  The new amendments to the law relating to rape, greeted with glee by much of the media in early 2013, were later widely criticised in the context of the charges filed against Tarun Tejpal later that year.  Both the initial reaction and the subsequent reassessment would have been more instructive and convincing if lawyers and activists with the requisite knowledge and experience had been consulted.

And then, most importantly, there is the social, cultural, economic and political context in which the apparent proliferation of sexual crimes is taking place.  It is significant that the most serious efforts to delve into the lives of the perpetrators of the December 2012 gang rape, exploring what could possibly have led them to commit such a brutally violent crime, appeared in two international newspapers.

Articles situating rape within the larger context of gender inequality and patriarchal attitudes towards women, on the one hand, and women’s growing consciousness, confidence and mobility, on the other, have appeared in the opinion and features sections of the print media; so have explorations of the skewed concepts of masculinity that underlie such crimes. However, such essential perspectives (often put forward by professionals from outside the media world), which could promote better understanding of such violence, its causes and consequences, and what needs to be done to tackle the scourge, have not yet permeated sufficiently into regular media practice. 

There is clearly an urgent need to step up and institutionalise ongoing efforts to improve media coverage of sexual violence. In some parts of the world media professionals have sought sensitivity training from survivors of crime and those helping them to secure justice in order to improve the accuracy of their coverage and minimise the trauma it can cause.  Such initiatives could make all the difference provided media institutions are willing to do things differently in order to make a difference. 

(The writer is a journalist and author based in Bangalore)
 
References (Some Resources):

1. ‘When Survivors Become Victims’ by Sameera Khan in ‘Missing Half the Story: Journalism as if Gender Matters,’  Kalpana Sharma (ed.), Zubaan Books, 2010
2. The Hoot (www.thehoot.org):  a media watch website – http://www.thehoot.org/resources/reporting-rape
3. Press Council of India:  Norms of Journalistic Conduct (http://presscouncil.nic.in/NORMS-2010.pdf)
4. News Broadcasters’ Association: Guidelines on Reportage of Cases of Sexual Assault (issued http://www.nbanewdelhi.com/images/uploadfile/43_PRESS%20RELEASE%207-1-13.pdf)
5. Report Responsibly (http://report-responsibly-india.tumblr.com):  a platform to host conversation and generate debate about responsible reporting on sexual assault in India.
6. The Blue Pencil (pencilblue.wordpress.com): a media watch project to monitor reporting on gender violence.
7. Network of Women in Media, India:  http://www.nwmindia.org (e.g., http://nwmindia.org/about-us/statements/nwmi-statement-on-insensitive-media-coverage-of-gang-rape-victim-in-west-bengal-june-14-2013, http://nwmindia.org/about-us/statements/nwmi-statement-at-mumbai-february-2013-the-media-must-be-part-of-the-solution-not-the-problem, http://www.nwmindia.org/national/identifying-survivors-of-sexual-assault-who-decides)

The post Uncovering Rape appeared first on SabrangIndia.