Zee TV | SabrangIndia

Freedom of press under threat from SLAPP suits: SC sets aside Saket Court Order in Bloomberg vs Zee Entertainment case

sabrang — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:51:54 +0000

On March 22, the Supreme Court (SC) set aside the Saket District Court order which had directed media company Bloomberg to take down its article titled “India Regulator Finds $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee”, noting that the District Court had applied the three-fold test used for passing an ex-parte injunction order in a mechanical manner, without any application of mind.

The Bloomberg article written by Anto Anthony and Saikat Das claimed that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had found a hole of more than $240 million in the accounts of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, and this amount, which was diverted illegally, is 10 times higher than the SEBI investigators had initially estimated, Indian Express reported.

The SC in its order of March 22 has said that “A cursory reproduction of the submissions and precedents before the court is not sufficient. The court must explain how the test is satisfied and how the precedents cited apply to the facts of the case.” The three-fold test used to grant interim injunctions in defamation suits consists of (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm to the concerned party.

The apex court further expressed surprise over the role of Delhi High Court in upholding the District Court order and said the High Court should have intervened in the first place when such an order which restricted the freedom of press and right to information was passed by the subordinate court under its jurisdiction.

Further, the Supreme Court in its March 22 order cautioned against the threat to freedom of speech, especially freedom of press, arising from rising instances of SLAPP suits. Its order recorded that the term “‘SLAPP’ stands for ‘Strategic Litigation against Public Participation’ and is an umbrella term used to refer to litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest”.

Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court was also critical of the Delhi High Court’s conduct in the case, and pointed out that appellate courts need to intervene in cases where the subordinate courts have exercised their discretion “arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction.” It remarked that the single judge bench of High Court has committed the same error as the trial judge, significantly in the matter affecting right to free speech.

Saket Court, New Delhi

Justice Harjyot Singh Bhalla of Saket District Court on March 1, 2024, had passed the ex-parte and pre-trial injunction order against Bloomberg in the defamation suit filed by Zee entertainment. It recorded that the stock price of the company fell by almost 15% because of the circulation of the defamatory material. Zee alleged that the article was published to malign and defame it, with a pre-meditated and malafide intention. Consequently, the court granted the injunction order against Bloomberg using three-fold test, directing it to take down the article within 7 days. The order reads, “In my view, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for passing ad interim ex-parte orders of injunction, balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and irreparable loss and injury may be caused to the plaintiff, if the injunction as prayed for is not granted.” Notably, the judge had merely recorded that “I have gone through the record available as on date”, without providing any further reasons for supporting the order.

The Saket District Court order may be read here:

Download PDF

What was the Bloomberg article about

Rejecting the appeal filed by Bloomberg on March 14, the Delhi High bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur maintained in its order that “A reading of the impugned order suggests that the learned ADJ applied his mind to the facts of this case and satisfied himself that prima facie there was enough material to come to the conclusion for the purpose of granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction…” Pertinently, SC rejected this view of the High Court, and found the District Court’s order lacking any application of mind.

The High Court order may be read here:

Download PDF

Empowering free media against SLAPP suits by corporate giants

The present SC order setting aside the previous orders of the trial judge and High Court and asking the former to hear the arguments afresh keeping in mind the order of apex court is a move in the right direction, and strengthens the cause of independent fearless media.

The verdict maintained that the three-fold test used for granting injunction orders cannot be applied mechanically to the detriment of the other party, and public at large. Importantly, it links the question of defamation and pre-trail ex-parte injunctions to the broader issues of free speech, press freedom, and right to information of the public. The court emphasised that the three-fold test alone is not sufficient and other factors need to be incorporated before an ex-parte injunction is granted, citing its decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das. It also noted that ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances, and additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind, especially with regard to suits filed against journalists.

The bench comprising CJI, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said that the Bonnard standard, as established in the decision of Bonnard v. Perryman, need to be followed in all the cases of pre-trial interim injunctions. Relying on the aforementioned case, the bench noted that “‘Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions.’” Citing Fraser v. Envas, the order observes that even if the article is defamatory, if the defendant says that he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest then there should be no restrain on the publication of such material, as it is in the public interest that the truth should come out.

The verdict said that “Granting interim injunctions, before the trial commences, in a cavalier manner results in the stifling of public debate. In other words, courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial. In all other cases, injunctions against the publication of material should be granted only after a full-fledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases, after the respondent is given a chance to make their submissions.”

Commenting on SLAPP suits pursued by vested economic interests, especially corporate behemoths, the judges remarked that such interim pre-trial injunctions “often act as a ‘death sentence’ to the material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven.” Thus, the bench remained cognizant of the fact that SLAPP suits have been weaponised by the companies to silence critical voices and prevent public from accessing the truth.

Finally, disposing of the matter, the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to hear the petition afresh, keeping in mind the factors mentioned by it.

The SC order may be read here:

Download PDF

The case against Seditio n

The post Freedom of press under threat from SLAPP suits: SC sets aside Saket Court Order in Bloomberg vs Zee Entertainment case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Why NDTV ban and Zee FIR are not comparable

Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:37:09 +0000

The first was an attack on free speech. The Mamata govt FIR aims to stop Zee from inciting Hindu-Muslim enmity with its coverage of the Dhulagarh riots.

ROHIN KUMAR says there is a big difference

Rohit Sardana presenting his show.

On December 19, the West Bengal government filed a FIR against Zee News editor, Sudhir Chaudhary, its West Bengal correspondent, Pooja Mehta, and cameraperson Tanmay Mukherjee for their coverage of the Dhulagarh riots last month in Howrah district of the state. The charges against them – promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race or place of birth etc. – are non-bailable.

Zee News, in its reporting on the Dhulagarh riots, especially the show ‘Taal Thok Ke’ by anchor Rohit Sardana, crossed all limits. Sardana compared Bengal to Pakistan and kept praising BJP spokesman Sambit Patra (one of the panelists on the show) for mentioning ‘Hindu’ in place of ‘dharm vishesh’. Professor Manojit Mandal, representing the ruling Trinamool Congress, kept requesting the anchor not to convert a law and order issue into a communal one.

The word secularism was turned into a joke. Parties opposed to the BJP were criticized for hyping the 2015 Dadri mob lynching while not criticising Malda or Dhulagarh because Sardana believes these parties indulge in minority appeasement politics. RSS ideologue Rakesh Sinha, another panelist, compared West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to Lord Curzon and accused her of communal polarization. The whole thrust of the programme was propagating hatred against Muslims and serving Hindutva propaganda.

"The whole thrust of the programme was propagating hatred against Muslims and serving Hindutva propaganda."

The day the FIR was lodged, Sudhir Chaudhary announced it on social media platforms. He introduced his fellow reporter Pooja Mehta by her age, ‘Pooja Mehta is just 25 and got the taste of Mamta's intolerance so early in life in the form of a non bailable FIR’.Introducing a colleague by her age and not by her credentials ridicules her professionalism.

His supporters took up the fact that while everyone had opposed the recent proposed ban against NDTV by the Information & Broadcasting Ministry, the lodging of a FIR against Zee journalists was an act of intolerance that was not being criticised. Chaudhary’s followers started tweeting with #ISupportSudhirSir.

Sudhir Chaudhary has to be credited for taking up the issue of Dhulagarah when most of the media houses seemed to be practising self censorship. Deepanjana Pal in this report published in Newslaundry mentions this and correctly points out that media failed people. People left messages like “Dada aashoon, amader baachan (Dada, please come and save us)!” for reporters whose contacts they had, but the reporters were unsure if it would be responsible to carry any story on it. It is their failure which created an opportunity for propagandist channels like Zee to convert Dhulagarh into an easy binary of a community vs the other. When this happens the audience begins to lose confidence in media and buys into by the narratives provided by Zee.

I had been very vocal against the NDTV ban but hardly wrote anything on the FIR lodged against Zee except sharing a DailyO article on the Dhulagarh riots. The article explained in depth how the BJP tried to paint the whole incident in communal colours. It said Zee News helped the BJP in this hate-mongering. The West Bengal BJP appealed to its Twitter followers to trend #BengalInFlames. However, the people of West Bengal and local reporters tried their level best to quell the rumours and maintain the peace.
In the media, one needs to be understand why events are sometimes covered or not covered or to what extent, but the big question is different: Is a media house allowed to incite hatred or align with a political party and favour a particular religious community and ensure its safety at the cost of the safety of another religious community?

"Is a media house allowed to incite hatred or align with a political party and favour a particular religious community and ensure its safety at the cost of the safety of another religious community?"

Not writing on the FIR on Zee was not because of antipathy to their ideology or some sort of ‘convenience of silence’. As a student of journalism, I have been taught ‘objectivity’, ‘never distort the facts’, ‘become the voice of the marginalised’, ‘never incite violence’, ‘avoid sensational news’, ‘stand against the unjust’, and ‘do not become a judge’.

I find that Sudhir Chaudhary and Zee have failed on all these parameters. Odd how Chaudhary and I are both alumni of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication but have turned out to practise two totally different forms of journalism. Just a reminder, it was Chaudhary, who was then CEO of the Live India channel, who aired a sting on Delhi government school teacher Uma Khurana which claimed that she was forcing students into prostitution. This turned out to be false but the damage to Khurana’s image was done.

Post-truth and the media
The Oxford Dictionary declared ‘post-truth’ as the Word of the Year in 2016 but elements of this phenomenon could be seen in the Indian media much earlier in channels like Zee News and in the coverage of right wing extremism. Take the example of the events at JNU in February. The way the incident was reported in the mass media was absurd. Forensic teams found a few of the videos shot by Zee to be doctored. Slogans were inserted in the original video but it went on air and a nationwide anti-JNU campaign was bolstered by the video. It was clear by the end of 2012 and by the 2014 general election that Zee was working hand-in-glove with the BJP.

Zee owner, Subhash Chandra, in his book The Z Factor: My Journey As The wrong Man At The Right Time (the book was inaugurated by Prime Minister Modi last year) provides insights into the editorial and working policy of Zee Media. Chandra mentions that when Samir Ahluwalia (then Zee Business head) and Sudhir Chaudhary were trapped in a Rs 100 crore extortion bid by businessman and Congress politician Naveen Jindal in 2012, the Congress Party did not help Chandra out. “This was an unjust act by the UPA. In response, I personally supported Narendra Modi’s campaign for prime ministership,” writes Chandra on page 264.

Zee has been reporting on the ‘Hindu exodus’ in Kairana and Malda, creating a binary over Akhlaq’s mob lynching and Bajrang Dal activist Prasanth Pujari’s murder in Karnataka, and over the recent Bhopal jail break encounter involving SIMI activists (Zee ‘declared’ them terrorists at once). Chandra’s channel has put all its efforts into framing Muslims and dividing audiences in the name of pseudo nationalism.

It should be made clear that the proposed ban on NDTV had a different context and was subjective in nature. The FIR against Chaudhary and his colleagues, by contrast, is aimed at alleviating a problem which could intensify Hindu-Muslim clashes. The former was an attempt to muzzle free speech. The latter is a sharp reminder to Zee to stick to media ethics. Therefore, these two developments cannot be seen as synonymous.

The primary principle of journalism – that the facts are sacred – requires the media to be very careful while reporting on sensitive issues rather adding fuel to the fire which is what Zee News sought to do.

Meanwhile the owner of Zee Media Subhash Chandra should look back at those tweets in which he demanded a life long ban on NDTV. He should be thankful to Ndtv Editorial Director Sonia Singh who inspite of channel rivalry believes that the FIR on Zee is an unjust act.

Courtesy: The Hoot

The post Why NDTV ban and Zee FIR are not comparable appeared first on SabrangIndia.

You thought Zee News was ‘brilliant’ with Rs 2,000 chip scoop, watch Aaj Tak journalists here

Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:36:01 +0000

We all know just how brilliant Zee News was with its ‘scoop’ on nano chip supposedly embedded in new Rs 2,000 note.

The channel’s editor, Sudhir Chaudhary, even dedicated a special segment on his prime time show DNA to ‘inform’ his audience about this revolutionary albeit imaginary innovation by the RBI.

Dismissing the report as “figments of imagination,” the RBI spokesperson Aplana Killawala told News18, “Such a technology does not exist at the moment in the world, then how can we introduce such a feature?”
But this didn’t stop the channel from becoming a subject of social media ridicule.

Now a new video of journalists from Zee’s rival channel, Aaj Tak, passionately shedding light on the ground-breaking technology- once again imaginary- invented by the central government has gone viral.

In the video, a group of Aaj Tak journalists can be seen forming a huddle with Shweta Singh, the channel’s lead anchor, ‘enlightening’ her in-house audience about the latest innovation related to Rs 2,000 note.

Singh, who wins the day for her passion, tells her ‘audience,’ “…There are three things we know (on nano GPS chip in Rs 2,000). The new note has nano technology GPS. If there are too many notes lying together at one place, then not only will the law enforcing agencies be alerted about it but even the Income Tax department will receive a signal. Because the note will transmit a signal directly to satellite, which will reach there so that the money can be recovered.”

Singh continues further as her captive audience find themselves completely awe-struck by what she has to say.

She adds, “(Though)nothing will happen when the notes are stored in banks. The notes can be found even if they are buried 120 meters below the earth.”

This is when an interjection takes place from a member of Singh’s audience.

The lady member of the audience agrees with Singh to say, ‘This is very good. Because as soon as Modi made the announcement, people began suspecting that the new Rs 2,000 notes will give rise to black money. But this( nano GPS) technology is…”

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

The post You thought Zee News was ‘brilliant’ with Rs 2,000 chip scoop, watch Aaj Tak journalists here appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Exclusive: जब मालिक की घुड़की ने बदल दिया Zee News के चौधरी का DNA और याद आया ‘कामराज प्‍लान’!

Thu, 18 Aug 2016 06:43:53 +0000

देश में ''राष्‍ट्रवादी पत्रकारिता'' के झंडाबरदार समाचार चैनल ज़ी न्‍यूज़ में जल्‍द ही कुछ बड़े बदलाव होने की ख़बर है। वैसे तो ज़ी न्‍यूज़ का दफ्तर किसी किले से कम नहीं है जहां पत्रकारों के मोबाइल ले जाने पर भी पाबंदी है, लेकिन ख़बर है कि सरकते-सरकते बाहर आ ही जाती है। सवा करोड़ की आबादी को राष्‍ट्रवाद की शिक्षा देने वाले इस चैनल में जुलाई के आखिरी दिनों में ऐसा क्‍या हुआ था कि इसके जेल-रिटर्न दबंग संपादक सुधीर चौधरी को वरिष्‍ठ प्रबंधन समेत इस्‍तीफे की पेशकश करनी पड़ गई? एक्‍स-श्रेणी सुरक्षा प्राप्‍त इस टीवी संपादक के डीएनए में बदलाव के क्‍या हैं कारण? मीडियाविजिल की खास रपट।

जुलाई के आखिरी सप्‍ताह में 26 तारीख की दोपहर सवा एक बजे ज़ी न्यूज़ के कर्मचारियों के पास एक आधिकारिक मेल आया। इसमें आदेश था कि चाहे काम हो चाहे छुट्टी, चाहे शिफ्ट हो अथवा नहीं, सभी कर्मचारियों को एक तय दिन ओपेनहाउस सेशन यानी मुक्‍त सत्र के लिए परिसर में मौजूद रहना है क्‍योंकि चेयरमैन की ओर से एक संवाद किया जाना है। देश में ज़ी के तमाम कार्यालयों में मौजूद कर्मचारियों को भी उस वक्‍त वीडियो कॉन्‍फ्रेंसिंग से जुड़ने का मेल भेजा गया। सुभाष चंद्रा के दफ्तर की ओर से अचानक आए इस फ़रमान ने तमाम अटकलों को जन्‍म दे दिया लेकिन उनकी उम्र ज्‍यादा नहीं टिक सकी क्‍योंकि पेशी के दिन सुभाष चंद्रा तो नहीं आए, अलबत्‍ता उनके विशेष दूत अमित जैन प्रकट हुए।

अमित जैन ने समस्‍त कर्मचारियों के सामने खुलकर कहा कि मालिक चैनल के प्रदर्शन से खुश नहीं है और ढिलाई की तो किसी को भी बख्‍शा नहीं जाएगा, चाहे वे समीर अहलुवालिया हों या सुधीर चौधरी। जैन ने साफ़ कहा कि कर्मचारियों में ऐसी धारणा है कि नवीन जिंदल वाले मामले के कारण समीर अहलुवालिया को और सेलेब्रिटी स्‍स्‍टेटस के कारण सुधीर चौधरी को प्रबंधन कुछ नहीं कहेगा। उन्‍हें यह धारणा छोड़ देनी चाहिए क्‍योंकि कोई भी ''बियॉन्‍ड स्‍क्रूटिनी'' नहीं है और नतीजे सभी को भुगतने होंगे।

इस पर टीम लीडर की भूमिका निभाते हुए सुधीर चौधरी आगे आए और उन्‍होंने कहा कि वे ''कामराज प्‍लान'' अपनाने को तैयार हैं यानी प्रबंधन के सभी वरिष्‍ठ कर्मचारियों समेत वे अपना इस्‍तीफा देने को तैयार हैं। इस पर जैन ने कहा कि बात व्‍यक्तियों की नहीं है, प्रोसेस की है। चैनल में ख़बरों को लेकर जो प्रक्रिया अपनाई जा रही है, मालिक उससे असंतुष्‍ट हैं। ऑर्बिट शिफ्टिंग की प्रक्रिया के तहत समाचारों को अगले चरण में पहुंचाने की जो कवायद शुरू की गई थी वह दम तोड़ती नज़र आ रही है।

बात आई और गई हो जाती, लेकिन अगले ही दिन पहले चेयरमैन के कार्यालय से और बाद में खुद अमित जैन की ओर से एक मेल कर्मचारियों को गया कि जैन शुक्रवार तक एचआर में पाए जाएंगे और कोई भी कर्मचारी उनसे खुलकर अपनी बात कह सकता है। अमित जैन ने तीन दिनों तक दफ्तर में डेरा डाल दिया। उन्‍होंने एलान किया कि कोई भी उनके पास आकर अपनी बात कह सकता है। इसके बाद उनके कमरे के आगे कर्मचारियों की लाइन लग गई। सूत्र बताते हैं कि सैकड़ों की संख्‍या में चैनल के कर्मचारियों ने उन्‍हें अपना प्रतिवेदन दिया। सूत्रों के मुताबिक अधिकतर शिकायतें न्‍यूज़रूम में घोषित पक्रिया और नीति को न अपनाए जान को लेकर रही, जिसमें सुधीर चौधरी के खिलाफ शिकायतें भी शामिल थीं। सुभाष चंद्रा के विशेष दूत जैन तो अब जा चुके हैं, लेकिन चैनल में अफ़वाहों का बाज़ार गर्म है। वे जाते-जाते कह गए हैं कि इसी साल कुछ बड़े बदलाव देखने को मिलेंगे। सभी शिकायतें गोपनीय रखी गई हैं।

दरअसल इस चैनल के मालिक सुभाष चंद्रा, सुधीर चौधरी के काम करने के तरीके से असंतुष्‍ट हैं। सूत्र बताते हैं कि बीते दो साल में मोबाइल जैमर, ऑर्बिट शिफ्टिंग, समाचार के अगले चरण पर शोध और नई इमारत पर चौधरी ने कम से कम 400 करोड़ रुपये खर्च करवाए हैं जिसका कोई खास रिटर्न देखने को नहीं मिल रहा। खर्च की गई राशि कुछ भी हो सकती है, यह केवल एक अनुमान है। चंद्रा को इस बात की भी चिंता है कि ''राष्‍ट्रवादी पत्रकारिता'' का आग़ाज़ कर के चौधरी ने दर्शकों को दो खेमों में बांट दिया है- अब या तो कोई दर्शक ज़ी न्‍यूज़ का प्रेमी है या फिर उसका कट्टर विरोधी। इस तरह चैनल की जो अतीत में साख थी, उसे काफी नुकसान पहुंचा है जिसे आने वाले दिनों में दुरुस्‍त करना मुश्किल हो सकता है। यह बात सुभाष चंद्रा को परेशान कर रही है।

इसी के चलते चंद्रा के विशेष दूत अमित जैन की वापसी के बाद चैनल पर ''क्रेडिबिलिटी रिपोर्ट'' नाम का एक बैंड इस हफ्ते शुरू किया गया है। इस बैंड में दिखायी जा रही ख़बर की विश्‍वसनीयता और गुणवत्‍ता पर मुहर लगाई जाती है। इसे तय करने के लिए चार पैमाने रखे गए हैं। अगर वे चारों पैमाने सही हैं, तो खबर दिख रहा प्रोड्यूसर उतने ही खानों पर सही का निशान लगाएगा और स्‍क्रीन पर 'आइएसआइ मार्क' छाप बैंड प्रकट हो जाएगा। दिलचस्‍प यह है कि खबर की गुणवत्‍ता कोई और नहीं तय कर रहा, ये प्रमाणपत्र खुद चैनल ही अपनी खबर को दे रहा है।

एक और समस्‍या चैनल के भीतर भ्रष्‍टाचार और वित्‍तीय अनियमितताओं को लेकर है। पिछले दिनों चैनल के आइटी प्रमुख को भ्रष्‍टाचार के चलते बर्खास्‍त कर दिया गया था। उससे पहले चैनल से दो सीईओ निकाले जा चुके हैं जिनमें एक पर भ्रष्‍टाचार के आरोप थे। अब चूंकि रिश्‍वत कांड में सुधीर चौधरी का दोबारा जेल जाना आसन्‍न है, इसलिए मालिक का शिकंजा कसता जा रहा है। मीडियाविजिल ने 28 जुलाई को एक ख़बर प्रकाशित की थी जिसका शीर्षक था ''सुधीर चौधरी फिर जा सकते हैं जेल…।'' हालिया घटनाक्रम को देखने का एक नजरिया यह भी हो सकता है।

Courtesy: MediaVigil.com

The post Exclusive: जब मालिक की घुड़की ने बदल दिया Zee News के चौधरी का DNA और याद आया ‘कामराज प्‍लान’! appeared first on SabrangIndia.