Tweet
PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
INTRODUCTION:
The Press Council of India is a statutory body in India that governs the conduct of the print media. It is one of the most important bodies that sustain democracy, as it has supreme power in regard to the media to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained. However, it is also empowered to hold hearings on receipt of complaints and take suitable action where appropriate. It may either warn or censure the errant journalists on finding them guilty.
Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad is current Chairman of the Council.
The Press Council of India was first set up on 4 July 1966 by the Parliament to regulate the press in India. The basis at that time was the Press Council Act, 1965 which resulted from the recommendations of the First Press Commission of India (1952-1954). The stated objectives were "to help newspapers maintain their independence" and to "raise the standards" through a code of conduct, maintaining "high professional standards" and "high standards of public taste". However, after 1978, the Council functions under the Press Council Act 1978 which arose from the recommendations of the Second Press Commission of India (1978) which argued, among other things, for a "cordial relationship between the government and the press".
The Press Council is a statutory, quasi-judicial body which acts as a watchdog of the press. It adjudicates the complaints against and by the press for violation of ethics and for violation of the freedom of the press respectively.
The Press Council is headed by a Chairman: usually,. a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India (except for the first chairman, Justice J. R. Mudholkar, who was a sitting judge of Supreme Court of India in 1968). The Council consists of 28 other members of whom 20 represent the press and are nominated by the press organisations/news agencies recognised and notified by the Council as all India bodies of categories such as editors, working journalists and owners and managers of newspaper; 5 members are nominated from the two houses of Parliament and 3 represent cultural, literary and legal fields as nominees of the Sahitya Academy, University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) and the Bar Council of India. The members serve on the Council for a term of three years. The Council was last reconstituted on 22 May 2001.
The Council is funded by revenue collected by it as fees levied on the registered newspapers in the country on the basis of their circulation. No fee is levied on newspapers with a circulation of less than 5000 copies. The deficit is made good by grants by the Central Government, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Complaint Procedure
Complaint Procedure for filing the complaint against the Press
It is open to any person to lodge a complaint with the Press Council against a newspaper for a breach of the recognized ethical canons of journalistic propriety and taste.The complainant need not necessarily be the person aggrieved or directly involved. The alleged breach may be in the publication or non-publication of a news-item or statement, or other material, like cartoons, pictures, photographs, strips or advertisements which are published in a newspaper. Cases can also be initiated by any member of the public against any professional misconduct by an editor, working journalist, staff of a newspaper or engaged in freelance work.There can also be a complaint against any matter transmitted by a news agency by any means whatsoever.By virtue of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, complaint shall be lodged with the Council within the following periods:
Dailies, News agencies and weeklies -----within two months
In other cases----within four months.
Provided that a relevant publication of an earlier date may be referred to in the complaint.
Write to the editor first
It is a requirement of the Inquiry Regulations that the complainant should initially write to the editor of the newspaper drawing his attention to what the complainant considers to be a breach of journalistic ethics or an offence against public taste. Such prior reference to the editor affords him an opportunity to deal with the matter in the first instance and thus allows the respondent to take such remedial action as he might consider appropriate before the complaint is lodged with the Council. This rule is necessary because it acquaints the editor with the identity of his accuser and the details of the complaint. It is conceivable that in some instances the complainant has been wrongly informed or has misinterpreted the facts. In others, it may be a case of inadvertent error which the editor is only too ready to admit and correct. If the would-be-complainant is satisfied, that would be the end of the matter.
Where, after reference to the newspaper, the person desires to proceed with the complaint, he should enclose with his complaint copies of correspondence with the editor, if no reply has been received from the editor, the fact should be mentioned in the complaint.
he complainant has, in his complaint, to give the name and address of the newspaper, editor or journalist against whom the complaint is directed. A clipping of the matter or news-items complained of, in original or self attested copy (English translation, if the news item(s) is in Indian language) should accompany the complaint. The complainant has to state in what manner the passage or news-items or the material complained of is objectionable. He should also supply other relevant particulars, if any. In the case of a complaint against non-publication of material the complainant will, of course, say how that constitutes a breach of journalistic ethics.
The Council cannot deal with any matter which is sub-judice in the law court. The complainant has to declare that “to the best of his knowledge and belief he has placed all the relevant facts before the Council and that no proceedings are pending in any court of law in respect of any matter alleged in the complaint.” A declaration that “ he shall notify the Council forthwith if during the pendency of the inquiry before the Council any matter alleged in the complaint becomes the subject matter of any proceedings in a court of law" is also necessary.
Complaints regarding oppression to Press freedom
A newspaper, a journalist or any institution or individual can complain against Central or State Government or any organization or person for interference with free functioning of the press or encroachment on the freedom of the press. Such complaints should contain full particulars of the alleged infringement whereupon the Council shall follow the procedure of inquiry set out herein above so far as may be.
The opinion expressed by the Council sub serves two useful purposes, namely
that any abuse of press freedom does not pass without anybody noticing it or raising a finger of protest, and
that the press should not in its own interest indulge in scurrilous or other objectionable writings-writings such as have been considered below the level of recognized standards of journalistic ethics by a fair minded jury like the Council constituted of the press itself, for it would lead to the very loss of the much prized freedom of the press.
HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE PRESS COUNCIL:
The PCI is responsible for inquiring into complaints received, by summoning witnesses and taking evidence under oath, or by demanding copies of public records to be submitted. It can issue warnings and admonish the newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist. The decisions of PCI are final and cannot be appealed before a court of law. With these powers, how effective has it been in addressing complaints concerning the press?
After the current Chairman Markandey Katju was appointed to the Council in June 2011 the body has acquired a much higher profile than before. Justice Katju has been very vocal both in criticizing the media and in defending its freedom. But apart from these regular pronouncements, what is the council’s record? Do major issues concerning the print media even come before it? If the council’s demand to take over oversight of the electronic and social media is to be considered what track record do we scrutinize first?
Out of the 90 complaints that were taken up in 2011-12, 60 per cent of the decisions were disposed of, dismissed, closed, dropped or withdrawn on account of non pursuance or a settlement between the two parties. In some cases the complaints were dropped as the complainant had either withdrawn or not appeared for hearing. The strongest decision that the Press Council took was to censure a publication or direct the editor to publish a rejoinder or an apology in connection to the complaint. (The PCI has limited powers as it is not empowered to do more than that. It cannot impose a penalty or punishment on publications, editors or journalists for violating journalistic standards and the Council’s guidelines.)
Between November 2011 and March 2012, the Press Council of India gave 90 adjudications in cases ranging from harassment of newsmen to defamation charges against news publications. Of the 90 cases, 42 were heard in November and the remaining 48 were adjudicated in March 2012. The matters reported to the Press Council were taken up by the Inquiry Committee in six meetings for the above time period. Out of the 90 complaints, more than 40 were filed four years ago. The complaints fall into two broad categories: filed by the press and against the press. Complaints by the press are sub-categorized into harassment of newsmen and facilities to the press (complaints by press for being denied facilities). The other broad category of complaints against the press deals with cases involving principles and publications, press and defamation, press and morality, and anti-national writing. Complaints against the press outnumbered those by the press with 67 reported cases while merely 23 cases were from the press on harassment (12) and interference with freedom of press (10).
Number of Complaints:
COMPLAINTS BY PRESS
Sr.No NATURE OF COMPLAINT NO. OF COMPLAINTS
1. Harassment of newsmen 12
2. Facilities to the Press 11
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE PRESS
Sr.No NATURE OF COMPLAINT NO. OF COMPLAINTS
1. Principles and Publication 14
2. Press and Defamation 49
3. Press and Morality 2
4. Anti National Writing 2
Total 90
1.Harassment of newsmen- Twelve adjudications were given with regard to the complaints concerning harassment of newsmen. The complaints dealt with cases of harassment of editors, writers, journalists as well as the use of violence and state-induced arrests/ framing of false cases inflicted upon them
2. Facilities to press-The cases under this category mainly dealt with refusal by any state authority to give information on an organization, press meets; denial of payment of advertisement bill from DAVP; refusal to issue press accreditation cards, etc. In such cases many of the decisions mainly involve directing the authority to follow the Press Council’s decision.
3. Principles and publication- Complaints under this category are filed against journalists and publications for publishing news items that do not adhere to journalistic ethics.
4. Press and defamation- News item that are false and malign a person’s or an institution’s image are filed under this category. Such cases mainly arise out of publication of sensational news items that are false, defamatory and frivolous.
5. Press and morality-Under this category, complaints against publications that hurt the sentiments of readers are filed. Two complaints were filed under this category, one dealing with an inappropriate portrayal of women in an advertisement by a local newspaper in Assam, and use of an indecent picture of a woman in one of the articles in India Today, New Delhi.
6. Anti-national writing -- Complaints against the press for anti-national writing was rarely filed. Two complaints -- one against the Editor of Greater Kashmir for allegedly publishing a sensational and provocative article against the army and the other against the Editor of Outlook for its depiction of the Indian Flag in an indecent manner were filed.
More than the fate of the cases filed before the Council which often come to a tame end, the point to note is that several recent controversies involving members of the print media do not even come up before it. These include cases of election time paid news, the controversies regarding the Radia tapes where print journalists were involved, the publishing of mms pictures by a leading Hindi daily, cases of regional newspapers reporting hate speech, and so on.
A body that demands more responsibility should perhaps first demonstrate that its labours in recent times have had some impact.
INTRODUCTION:
The Press Council of India is a statutory body in India that governs the conduct of the print media. It is one of the most important bodies that sustain democracy, as it has supreme power in regard to the media to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained. However, it is also empowered to hold hearings on receipt of complaints and take suitable action where appropriate. It may either warn or censure the errant journalists on finding them guilty.
Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad is current Chairman of the Council.
The Press Council of India was first set up on 4 July 1966 by the Parliament to regulate the press in India. The basis at that time was the Press Council Act, 1965 which resulted from the recommendations of the First Press Commission of India (1952-1954). The stated objectives were "to help newspapers maintain their independence" and to "raise the standards" through a code of conduct, maintaining "high professional standards" and "high standards of public taste". However, after 1978, the Council functions under the Press Council Act 1978 which arose from the recommendations of the Second Press Commission of India (1978) which argued, among other things, for a "cordial relationship between the government and the press".
The Press Council is a statutory, quasi-judicial body which acts as a watchdog of the press. It adjudicates the complaints against and by the press for violation of ethics and for violation of the freedom of the press respectively.
The Press Council is headed by a Chairman: usually,. a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India (except for the first chairman, Justice J. R. Mudholkar, who was a sitting judge of Supreme Court of India in 1968). The Council consists of 28 other members of whom 20 represent the press and are nominated by the press organisations/news agencies recognised and notified by the Council as all India bodies of categories such as editors, working journalists and owners and managers of newspaper; 5 members are nominated from the two houses of Parliament and 3 represent cultural, literary and legal fields as nominees of the Sahitya Academy, University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) and the Bar Council of India. The members serve on the Council for a term of three years. The Council was last reconstituted on 22 May 2001.
The Council is funded by revenue collected by it as fees levied on the registered newspapers in the country on the basis of their circulation. No fee is levied on newspapers with a circulation of less than 5000 copies. The deficit is made good by grants by the Central Government, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Complaint Procedure
Complaint Procedure for filing the complaint against the Press
It is open to any person to lodge a complaint with the Press Council against a newspaper for a breach of the recognized ethical canons of journalistic propriety and taste.The complainant need not necessarily be the person aggrieved or directly involved. The alleged breach may be in the publication or non-publication of a news-item or statement, or other material, like cartoons, pictures, photographs, strips or advertisements which are published in a newspaper. Cases can also be initiated by any member of the public against any professional misconduct by an editor, working journalist, staff of a newspaper or engaged in freelance work.There can also be a complaint against any matter transmitted by a news agency by any means whatsoever.By virtue of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, complaint shall be lodged with the Council within the following periods:
Dailies, News agencies and weeklies -----within two months
In other cases----within four months.
Provided that a relevant publication of an earlier date may be referred to in the complaint.
Write to the editor first
It is a requirement of the Inquiry Regulations that the complainant should initially write to the editor of the newspaper drawing his attention to what the complainant considers to be a breach of journalistic ethics or an offence against public taste. Such prior reference to the editor affords him an opportunity to deal with the matter in the first instance and thus allows the respondent to take such remedial action as he might consider appropriate before the complaint is lodged with the Council. This rule is necessary because it acquaints the editor with the identity of his accuser and the details of the complaint. It is conceivable that in some instances the complainant has been wrongly informed or has misinterpreted the facts. In others, it may be a case of inadvertent error which the editor is only too ready to admit and correct. If the would-be-complainant is satisfied, that would be the end of the matter.
Where, after reference to the newspaper, the person desires to proceed with the complaint, he should enclose with his complaint copies of correspondence with the editor, if no reply has been received from the editor, the fact should be mentioned in the complaint.
he complainant has, in his complaint, to give the name and address of the newspaper, editor or journalist against whom the complaint is directed. A clipping of the matter or news-items complained of, in original or self attested copy (English translation, if the news item(s) is in Indian language) should accompany the complaint. The complainant has to state in what manner the passage or news-items or the material complained of is objectionable. He should also supply other relevant particulars, if any. In the case of a complaint against non-publication of material the complainant will, of course, say how that constitutes a breach of journalistic ethics.
The Council cannot deal with any matter which is sub-judice in the law court. The complainant has to declare that “to the best of his knowledge and belief he has placed all the relevant facts before the Council and that no proceedings are pending in any court of law in respect of any matter alleged in the complaint.” A declaration that “ he shall notify the Council forthwith if during the pendency of the inquiry before the Council any matter alleged in the complaint becomes the subject matter of any proceedings in a court of law" is also necessary.
Complaints regarding oppression to Press freedom
A newspaper, a journalist or any institution or individual can complain against Central or State Government or any organization or person for interference with free functioning of the press or encroachment on the freedom of the press. Such complaints should contain full particulars of the alleged infringement whereupon the Council shall follow the procedure of inquiry set out herein above so far as may be.
The opinion expressed by the Council sub serves two useful purposes, namely
that any abuse of press freedom does not pass without anybody noticing it or raising a finger of protest, and
that the press should not in its own interest indulge in scurrilous or other objectionable writings-writings such as have been considered below the level of recognized standards of journalistic ethics by a fair minded jury like the Council constituted of the press itself, for it would lead to the very loss of the much prized freedom of the press.
HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE PRESS COUNCIL:
The PCI is responsible for inquiring into complaints received, by summoning witnesses and taking evidence under oath, or by demanding copies of public records to be submitted. It can issue warnings and admonish the newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist. The decisions of PCI are final and cannot be appealed before a court of law. With these powers, how effective has it been in addressing complaints concerning the press?
After the current Chairman Markandey Katju was appointed to the Council in June 2011 the body has acquired a much higher profile than before. Justice Katju has been very vocal both in criticizing the media and in defending its freedom. But apart from these regular pronouncements, what is the council’s record? Do major issues concerning the print media even come before it? If the council’s demand to take over oversight of the electronic and social media is to be considered what track record do we scrutinize first?
Out of the 90 complaints that were taken up in 2011-12, 60 per cent of the decisions were disposed of, dismissed, closed, dropped or withdrawn on account of non pursuance or a settlement between the two parties. In some cases the complaints were dropped as the complainant had either withdrawn or not appeared for hearing. The strongest decision that the Press Council took was to censure a publication or direct the editor to publish a rejoinder or an apology in connection to the complaint. (The PCI has limited powers as it is not empowered to do more than that. It cannot impose a penalty or punishment on publications, editors or journalists for violating journalistic standards and the Council’s guidelines.)
Between November 2011 and March 2012, the Press Council of India gave 90 adjudications in cases ranging from harassment of newsmen to defamation charges against news publications. Of the 90 cases, 42 were heard in November and the remaining 48 were adjudicated in March 2012. The matters reported to the Press Council were taken up by the Inquiry Committee in six meetings for the above time period. Out of the 90 complaints, more than 40 were filed four years ago. The complaints fall into two broad categories: filed by the press and against the press. Complaints by the press are sub-categorized into harassment of newsmen and facilities to the press (complaints by press for being denied facilities). The other broad category of complaints against the press deals with cases involving principles and publications, press and defamation, press and morality, and anti-national writing. Complaints against the press outnumbered those by the press with 67 reported cases while merely 23 cases were from the press on harassment (12) and interference with freedom of press (10).
Number of Complaints:
COMPLAINTS BY PRESS
Sr.No NATURE OF COMPLAINT NO. OF COMPLAINTS
1. Harassment of newsmen 12
2. Facilities to the Press 11
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE PRESS
Sr.No NATURE OF COMPLAINT NO. OF COMPLAINTS
1. Principles and Publication 14
2. Press and Defamation 49
3. Press and Morality 2
4. Anti National Writing 2
Total 90
1.Harassment of newsmen- Twelve adjudications were given with regard to the complaints concerning harassment of newsmen. The complaints dealt with cases of harassment of editors, writers, journalists as well as the use of violence and state-induced arrests/ framing of false cases inflicted upon them
2. Facilities to press-The cases under this category mainly dealt with refusal by any state authority to give information on an organization, press meets; denial of payment of advertisement bill from DAVP; refusal to issue press accreditation cards, etc. In such cases many of the decisions mainly involve directing the authority to follow the Press Council’s decision.
3. Principles and publication- Complaints under this category are filed against journalists and publications for publishing news items that do not adhere to journalistic ethics.
4. Press and defamation- News item that are false and malign a person’s or an institution’s image are filed under this category. Such cases mainly arise out of publication of sensational news items that are false, defamatory and frivolous.
5. Press and morality-Under this category, complaints against publications that hurt the sentiments of readers are filed. Two complaints were filed under this category, one dealing with an inappropriate portrayal of women in an advertisement by a local newspaper in Assam, and use of an indecent picture of a woman in one of the articles in India Today, New Delhi.
6. Anti-national writing -- Complaints against the press for anti-national writing was rarely filed. Two complaints -- one against the Editor of Greater Kashmir for allegedly publishing a sensational and provocative article against the army and the other against the Editor of Outlook for its depiction of the Indian Flag in an indecent manner were filed.
More than the fate of the cases filed before the Council which often come to a tame end, the point to note is that several recent controversies involving members of the print media do not even come up before it. These include cases of election time paid news, the controversies regarding the Radia tapes where print journalists were involved, the publishing of mms pictures by a leading Hindi daily, cases of regional newspapers reporting hate speech, and so on.
A body that demands more responsibility should perhaps first demonstrate that its labours in recent times have had some impact.