COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN GUJARAT- ROLE OF THE MEDIA

Sir/ Madam
I am to forward here with a copy of the decision rendered by the Press council of India on June 30, 2003 at New Delhi in the aforesaid matter for information / compliance / necessary action.

We have forgotten this advise. Rather completely. There .can be no explanation for the insane carnage in Gujarat, which burned, experienced barbarous violence and left in its aftermath all round fear, hatred, insecurity and grim vengeful attitude among the people. The agonizing thoughts and introspection forced on the society by the carnage cannot be eluded. A pertinent question here is whether the media played their role fairly on the expected lines adhering to the norms. There are 32 large and vernacular publications in Ahmedabad alone prominent among them being 'Sandesh' and 'Gujarat Samachar'. Therefore this applies more so to the local journalists who have to play a careful and responsible role in such situations of crisis.

All disorders, which acquire communal character, make news. It is axiomatic that they cause divisiveness and hatred among the common people. It is needless to say reporting of such an event is as sensitive, delicate and challenging as the event itself. The information is disseminated should no doubt factually be correct but at the same time should not be inciting and on the other hand, should be palliative. Voices of concern could be heard from varied quarters that the 'Media' did not play its legitimate role during this period and at least few papers by their unholy dissemination of news polluted the atmosphere. It is true that localized incidents communal violence are not uncommon in the post-independent India. However, when reported in the media, they assume and induce repercussion of national, and sometimes international, character.

During the riots in Gujarat in February-May 2002, some NGOs, and Committees consisting renowned senior citizens visited Gujarat and gave their assessment about the role of media. Likewise, Editors Guild Fact Findings Mission' consisting of few senior editors visited Gujarat, interviewed people gave a report with particular reference to the role played by media and found that some papers had indulged in giving slanted reports.

Twice during the crisis the Chairman of the Press Council appealed to the media for restraint and care. The first came on 4.3.2002 immediately after the riots broke out and is produced below -

Again on 3.4.2002 having noted with concern the somewhat sensationalized coverage of the riots, referring to the appeal of 4.3.2002, the Chairman, Press Council of India issued the following appeal-

"It was fervently hoped that the media would heed the appeal made to it in the interest of the nation as a whole. But it has been noted with deep anguish that a large number of newspapers and news channels in the country and, in particular a large section of the print and electronic media in Gujarat has, instead of alleviating communal unrest, played an ignoble role in inciting communal passions leading to large scale rioting, arson and pillage in the State concerned.

The Press Council by the norms set out, ordained the media to avoid sensational, provocative and alarming headlines, avoid details that might hurt religious sentiments; as also the reports that could undermine the peoples confidence in the maintenance and restoration of peace and law and order.

The Press Council gathered as many as 800 paper cuttings and carefully examined the same. Wherever there were violations of the norms; the Council proceeded to take suo-motu action against such papers. In addition it received individual complaints. After processing, the Inquiring Committee held its sitting at Ahmedabad and after hearing the parties in the matters made its recommendations. Since issues are common to these cased they are grouped together below for comprehensive understanding of the situation and views of the Press Council thereon.

I-II. Complaints of Dr. Shujaat Vali, Lara Mother Health Care Centre, Godhra, Gujarat against Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh.(14/47-48/02-03)

III. Complaint of Shri Usman Haji Ahmed Qurayshi, General Secretary, Forum for Social Justice, Ahmedabad against Sandesh (14/118/02-03)

IV-V. Complaints of Shri Shahabuddin, President, All India Muslim Majliees-E-Mushwarat, New Delhi against Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh. (14/157/ 02-03)and (14/ 229/ 02-03)

VI-VII. Complaints of Dr. Shakeel Ahmad, Administrator, IRCG-Cell for Legal Kelp and Guidance, Ahmedabad against Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar. (14/305-306/02-O3.)

VIII. Memoraudum from Citizens of Ahmedabad regarding spreading of violence through print media in Gujarat against Sandesh. (14/307/02-03)

IX. Objectionable clippings relating to Gujarat riots for suo-motu action against Vishva Hindu Samachar, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran, The Telegraph, Asian Age, Rashtriya Sahara 'and The Mainstream. (14/386/ 02- 03)

X. Reference from an anonymous complainant regarding publication of an objectionable photograph in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi. (14/20/02-03)

XI-XII Complaints of Shri Hindumal M. Shah, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh against Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad. (4/84-85/02-03) and (l 4/142/02-03)

XIV. Complaint of Maj. General Don Patrick (Retired) Ooty, Tamil Nadu against Hindu. (14/105/02-03)

XV. Complaint of Dr. K.P. Hardas, Nagpur. against Indian Express, Maharashtra.(14/ 116/02-03)

XVI. Complaint of the President, Jeevit Hindustan, Kolkata (through Ministry of I&B) against The Telegraph. (14/308/02-03)

XVII. Complaint of Dr. Krishen Kak, IAS (Retired) Delhi against The Times of India, Delhi(14/106/02-03)

XVIII-XXI. Complaints of Shri Sharad C. Misra, Mumbai, Dr. D.N. Godhok, Mumbai, Shri Hardayal Bhalla, Mumbal and Shri D.C. Gupta, Mumbai against The Times of India. (14/122-125/02-03)

XXII-XIV. Complaints of Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad Maharashtra against Tarun Bharat, Saamna and Vishwamitra.

Year 2002 was a year of trials and tribulations for the country. Parts of Gujarat faced early in the year, a burst of frenzy that prompted many to question the principles of secularism enshrined in our Constitution. The situation also brought to the fore, the role of Media in the crisis situation.

The Press Council of India received stores of complaints against the print media, some national level publication, which the Press Council has dealt with separately and some Gujarat based newspapers. The subject matter of complaints adjudicated herein is the reporting by two Gujarati newspapers Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar, leading dailies of Gujarat, which the complainants listed herein below, alleged, played a role not consistent with the guidelines relating to coverage of communal disturbances. The complaints against Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar have been summarized below:

I-II.          Dr. Situjaat Vali,                                             1.Sandesh,
                Lara Mother Health                Versus
                Care Centre,
                GodIira (Gujarat)                                             2.Gujarat samachar

Dr. Shujaat Vali, Lara Mother Health Care Centre, Godhra, Gujarat filed a complaint on 26.2.2002 charging the press with publication of misleading and inflammatory reports during March - April 2002 and playing a criminal role in spreading riots in Gujarat after Godhra violence. The complainant submitted that Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar had published objectionable, misleading news items and rumours, adding fuel to the fire. Dr. Vali requested the Press Council to take necessary action to restrain the Press from spreading communal violence.

Managing Editor, Sandesh in his comments dated 3.8.2002 while denying the allegations made in the complaint, submitted that the complaint was false, improper, illegal and lodged with a biased mind. The respondent submitted that the 'Sandesh' never committed any breach of journalistic ethic nor intended to commit breach of journalistic ethics at any point of time. It denied publishing any misleading, objectionable, exaggerated, inflammatory and biased news items/pictures relating to the Gujarat violence during the period from March to April 2002 as alleged in the complaint. According to the respondent the reports were carried in good faith. Further the news, which were published in "Sandesh" daily during the relevant period for promoting/ maintaining harmony amongst the communities, had not been cited in the said letter of complainant, which showed that the complainant had cited certain news items with biased mind. Generally all Gujarati print media as well as journals published in English language had also highlighted the alleged incidents in their newspaper and magazines/journals. The news item had been published in the large interest of the members of the society and to make them conscious for their lives and therefore it could not be said that the published news items in question were misleading, objectionable, exaggerated, inflammatory, and biased news item/pictures relating to the Gujarat violence. These were not provocating, instigating or the tendency to whip up the communal tension. The respondent submitted that the alleged news were published in good faith without any bias and in the interest of members of the society at large and not to add any fuel the fire of riots in the state of Gujarat. The respondent further stated that "Sandesh" has also published a numbers of news, which helped to cool down the situation, and published appeals of political leaders to maintain communal harmony in the society.

A copy of the comments of Sandesh was forwarded to the complainant on 10.9.2002.

III. Shri Usman Haji Ahmed Qurayshi,              Versus                        The Sandesh
      General Secretary,
      Forum for Social Justice
      Ahmedabad.

Shri Usman Haji Ahmed Qurayshi, General Secretary, Forum for Social Justice, Ahmedabad in his complaint dated 20.4.2002 against Sandesh, Gujarati daily, Ahmedabad alleged publication of false and immoral news items thereby adding fuel to the fire during the Gujarat riots. The complainant submitted that the respondent had published a news item captioned " Dead bodies of two young women found in very distorted condition" (English translation) in the issue dated 1.3.2002. The news item reported about two girls allegedly abducted from the Sabaramati Express and found dead later on. It further reported that the worst aspect about it was that their dead bodies were found with their breast cut and removed from the body and that the horrible sight had created a feeling of vengeance amongst the Hindu community.

The complainant submitted that the impugned news was totally false and did not have any basis. In fact the Government including the Defence Minister had clearly mentioned that no such incident had occurred. He averred that such news was not reported by any other newspapers and alleged that the news item was published with an ulterior motive to create hatred in the minds of the people of the majority community. It had enraged their communal feelings and led to retaliation. The incidents occurring in Godhra thereafter were proof to the ill effect of the said news.

The second news item published on 6.3.2002 reported that as per the intelligence report, the lives of Hindus would be in danger after the Haj pilgrims return. The news item further goes to say that on orders of ISI, the terrorists were ready to attack Hindus at various places after the Haj pilgrims return. Huge amount of RDX and other explosives were ready as per a well-planned programme to sabotage Hindu places. But these agencies were waiting for the Hal pilgrims to return to begin their attacks.

Shri Qurayshi alleged that the impugned news item enraged the Hindus in Gujarat and also created a sense of insecurity amongst them. The Sandesh had thus sabotaged the peace in the State and these news items were only intended to add fuel to whole fire of the riots and creating vengeance in the minds of the people of both the communities. The complainant requested the Council to take immediate action against the Sandesh.

A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Sandesh, Ahmedabad on 18.6.2002. Managing Editor, Sandesh in his written statement dated 5.7.2002 submitted that the news-item was published in good faith and with an intention to caution and alert the public at large to fake precautionary steps and also to protect members of the society after taking necessary note of the news. According to him, the said news-item was published in other newspapers also. He denied that the news-items were meant to create any further disturbances or to add fuel to five. A copy of the written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 23.7.2002.

The complainant- Shri Qurayshi in his counter comments dated 20.9.2002 submitted that the incident that happened at Godhra on 27.2.2002 was condemnable. The complainant alleged that many a times the print media sponsored violence had broken out. At different times some big daily Gujarati newspapers sowed the seeds of communal and racial violence and nurtured them. According to the complainant, the 'Sandesh' was anti minority and trying to project Muslim community as fanatic, frenzied, anti social and anti national. The news items published by the respondent newspaper were, he alleged, distorted, exaggerated, provocative and suppressed the truth

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the Sandesh respondent on 22.10.2002.

Managing Editor, Sandesh in his additional written statement dated 23.10.2002 submitted that the complaint was a one-sided version of presentation of the events starting from the 27th February 2002. The newspaper had not the slightest intention of prejudicing one community against the other nor had it ever indulged in the same. The newspaper reported the actual events as has been reported by other newspapers and the electronic media of the country. The newspapers had no intention to create any ill feeling for any community and it had not done anything, which affected the peace and tranquility and harmony in the society. The complainant, he claimed, had not stated the correct facts but presented distorted version.

IV-   V. Shri Syed Shahabuddin,                                             Gujarat Samachar
        President, All India Muslim                 Versus
        Majlis-E-Mushawarat,                                                         Sandesh
        New Delhi.

Shri Syed Shahbuddin, President, All India Muslim Majlis-e- Mushawarat, New Delhi in his letter dated 22.04.2002 drew the attention of the Press Council towards reports published by the Gujarati press in general and "Gujarati Samachar" and "Sandesh" in particular for inflamming religious passions in Gujarat. Shri Shahabuddin Syed also produced a copy of an article by an eminent journalist Shri Batuk Vora on the subject published in the Mainstream. Some of the contents of the article, which are as follows, give an overview:

"If a question is raised to any literate member of the minority community in Ahmedabad as to who played the most communal or criminal role during this carnage, and he or she will invariably shoot the reply:

Shri Shahabuddin requested the Council to take suo-motu notice of the news and views published by the two major dailies of Gujarat for the period from 27th Feb to 26th April 2002 to review their performance in the light of the code of conduct laid down by the Council.

The complainant in his letter-dated 20.6.2002 again requested the Council to take cognizance of the violation of the code of conduct prescribed by the Council by sonic newspapers in Gujarat. The complainant also referred to the report of the Editors' Guild of India, which indicted the Gujarati press, particularly the Sandesh and the Gujarat Samachar. The complainant further submitted that the National Human Rights Commissions had also noted the phenomenon and during the visit of AIMMM delegation many Complaints from the victims were heard and the Gujarati press was held responsible for igniting and fanning communal violence.

Comments of respondent "Gujarat Samachar" and "Sandesh" were invited on 26.06.2002.

Managing editor, Sandesh in his comments dated 03.08.2002 submitted that the contents, averments allegations made against 'Sandesh' by the complainant were false, improper, illegal and had been made with a biased mind. The respondent submitted that while the news items published in Sandesh on various dates as alleged in the article of Mr. Batuk Vora, were all published in 'Sandesh' daily during the alleged period, those exhorting the public to maintain the harmony amongst the communities, had not been cited in the article which shows that the author of the article, Shri Vora had cited certain news items with biased mind. The respondent further submitted that not only Sandesh but generally all Gujarati Print Media as well as magazines, journals etc. printed and published in English language, also highlighted the alleged incidents in their newspapers and journals. The alleged news items were published in the larger interest of the members of the society and to make them conscious for their lives and therefore it cannot be said that the 'Sandesh' had committed any breach of journalistic ethics.

According to the respondent, the contents of the article in question did not have any evidential support nor was it legally tenable. The article written by Mr. Batuk Vora of "Mainstream" published in its issue of April 20, 2002 was a "Personal View" of the author in regard of the alleged subject matter i.e. "Gujarati Print Media's role in the carnage" and after carefully going through the article, it could be inferred that author might have some grievances against the Gujarati Print Media.

The author of article failed in appreciating the news items published in "Sandesh" for establishing peace in the society and appeals of political leaders to maintain communal harmony amongst the members of society, contended the respondent.

The respondent further submitted that in the alleged article the author tried to defend the electronic media by saying that they are newly established and were not able to understand the root cause or the psychology of both the communities and conflict in Gujarat. In this context the respondent raised a question whether live telecast of violence shown by the electronic media, could be called ethical while the print media, which published same news of violence a day later, were unethical?

The respondent editor, Sandesh in his additional comments dated 08.11.2002 submitted that the insinuations and allegations made by the writer of the article, enclosed with the complaint were made with ill will. According to the respondent, all the newspapers in the State had reported what actually happened in Gujarat and other parts of the country. Sandesh had not deviated from its line of unbiased reporting of news. It did not take side with any community and always attempted to place on record the real picture.

The respondent stated that a Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati, was enquiring into the details of these disturbances. The crimes committed on both the communities by anti-social elements and anti-national elements were being cited even before the Commission. Therefore, it is not as if something was imagined by the newspapers or some imaginary events were cooked up by the newspapers for the purpose of getting some cheap publicity. The respondent submitted that the complaint was devoid of any substance and liable to be dismissed.

VI-VII.
Dr. Shakeel Ahmad,                                             Sandesh
Administiator,                           Versus
IRCG Cell for Legal Help &
Guidance, Ahmedabad.                                        Gujarat Samachar

Dr. Shakeel Ahmad, Administrator, Islamic Relief Committee Gujarat (IRCG)-Cell for Legal Help & Guidance, Ahmedabad filed a complaint dated 22nd July, 2002 against Gujarati dailies - "Sandesh" and "Gujarat Samachar" for publishing distorted, concocted, fabricated and exaggerated news items during the Gujarat riots after Godhra incident. The complainant alleged that the vernacular press, particularly the daily newspapers- Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar, had seriously and grossly inflamed the situation during the riots in the State in violation of the established norms of journalistic ethics. The reporting and publication of the news items by both these newspapers had also been since long directly vindictive, incriminating the Muslim community for creating trouble in the society, being prone to create disputes and pick up fights with the Hindu community. According to the complainant if a detailed analysis of their daily reporting is undertaken, one conclusion could be drawn that the reporting had been unfair and partisan and they have completely blown out of proportion the incidence of the so called attack on the majority Hindu community and their sufferings, in turn instigating retaliatory action against-the Muslim community.

The complainant alleged that the said conduct of the newspapers clearly established that they had not discharged their obligatory duties of free, fair and unbiased reporting of giving true picture to the society thereby facilitating and advocating the maintenance of peace and harmony of the society. On the contrary the said reporting contained rumours and alarming news with an intention to incite Hindus and cause fear or alarm to the Muslim community.

Giving references of some news items; the complainant submitted that the respondent newspapers splashed coloured photograph of the acts of slaughtering of animals with a view to incite feeling of disgust and hatred amongst the Hindu community alleging cow slaughter in broad daylight and public places. It also reported that the members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad had been trying to stop the same but were attacked by the Muslim community gunning for their lives. The complainant referred particularly to the news item published in Sandesh dated 28.02.2002.

The complainant submitted that when the said newspapers were expected to show restraint and report and publish the Godhra incident giving a true and clear picture to the public, they published malafide, distorted, concocted and fabricated stories and the incidence. Show-cause notices were issued to "Sandesh" and "Gujarat Samachar" on 09.08.2002.

Managing editor of Sandesh in his written statement dated 18.09.2002 denied the allegations made in the complaint. The respondent submitted that the newspaper had not the slightest intention of prejudicing one community against the other nor has it even indulged into the same. According to the respondent all the newspaper in the State of Gujarat and Mumbai, published in English or Gujarati had similarly reported what had actually happened in Gujarat and other parts of the country and Sandesh has not deviated from its line of activity of unbiased reporting of news. The respondent stated that the newspaper had never portrayed or justified any act of violence either by the Muslim or by Hindu community. It had reported the actual events as had been reported by other newspapers and the electronic media of the country. The respondent submitted that the complaint was devoid of substance and therefore, the same may be dismissed.

A copy of the written statement was for-warded to the complainant on 22.11.2002.

The managing editor, Gujarat Samachar in his written statement dated 16.10.2002 while denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that they acted in complete bonafide manner following the norms of freedom of he press. They had complied with their duty to reach out to the masses and put forth the true and correct state of affairs in the State and the country. During the period of the unfortunate riots in Gujarat their newspaper Gujarat Samachar had observed severe restraint in publishing the news items, which could add fuel to the riots and spark off further riots.

VIII. Memorandum from Citizens of Ahmedabad regarding spreading of violence through Print media in Gujarat.

The citizens of Ahmedabad vide their memorandum dated 22nd July 2002 drew the attention of the Press Council towards the role of media during the riots in Gujarat and thereby spreading violence in the State. It was stated in the memorandum that at different times one or two big daily Gujarati newspapers had sown the seeds of communal and racial violence and nurtured them. Many a times print med sponsored violence had broken out. Among Gujarati dailies, the newspaper "Sandesh" had spread violence by publishing news and articles in provocative and instigating language.

Referring to several instances, the complainants submitted that the Sandesh Daily newspaper was anti-minority and it published totally biased, partial and provocative news items. It projected Muslim community as fanatic, frenzied, anti-social and anti-national and depicted them as terrorists. It was further alleged in the memorandum that the news items published after the Godhra incident were twisted, distorted, false in facts, exaggerated or presented half truths and instigated and provoked. Captions to photographs and box-item were printed in trick)' and deceptive manner.

The details of the 17 news items alleged by concocted or provocative were as follows:

1. 28.02.2002 page 1 continued on page 14-Title stating that: 60 Hindus burnt alive in Godhra. Provocative language used.

2. 28.02.2002 page 1 heading: 10-15 Hindu ladies dragged away by fanatic mob from the railway compartment. Contents- Religious fanatics kidnapped some 10-15 Hindu women from railway coach. (2) Ladies ran away to save their lives and miscreants caught them.

3. 28.02.2002 page 16 bogus story repeated with the heading: 8-10 young ladies dragged away; in slums helpless women were struggling to escape from the grip of Shaitans. Report by an eyewitness: Bapunagar mob dragged away 8-10 ladies into the slums.

4. 28.02.2002 page 5 news item with heading: On arrival of Sabarmati Express at Ahmedabad slogans shouted Jai Shree Ram. Blood against blood.

5. Suppression of truth 23.02.2002 page 3: Mob killed a youth in Bapunagar, buses and shops set on fire in Ahmedabad. Actually youth killed was a Muslim but this paper printed that a youth owning Khanna mutton shop was killed, deliberately his identity was not disclosed. Other victims were Muslims and their properties but 'Sandesh' has not mentioned anywhere in the news.

6. 28.02.2002 page 2 heading: On the edge of sword train driver was hijacked. In fact there is no such hijack of Sabarmati Express train driver any other newspaper either in Gujarati or English published such a story'.

7. 01.03.2002 Page1 continued on page 14 heading: 15000 mobs did great destruction: 50 burnt alive in Gulmarg. Society of Chamanpura (Ahmedabad)-Three died, five injured: mob became fierce. News about killing of ex-N4P Shri Ehsan Jeffery printed, On the 1st page, the story tells that ex-MP fired at the mob, so that mob was irritated and killed him.

8. 01.03.2002 page 16 heading: Out of kidnapped young ladies from Sabarmati Express, dead bodies of two ladies recovered-breasts of ladies were cut down. Actually no such incident has happened. Police authority denied this incident. (Gujarati daily newspaper 'Gujarat Samachar' dated 02.03.2002 carried news of denial of any incident of breasts cutting.)

9. Deceptive and tricky photo and news 01.03.2002 on the top of front page amid coloured photo of funeral pyres, a big title of 98 killed is printed thereby creating an impression of death of 98 persons of majority community on the mind of readers.

10. 05.03.2002 there is a news item on 1st page with heading: Karsevaks going ahead neglecting prohibitory orders. Disobeying of prohibitory orders by Karsevaks is glorified n this news.

11. 05.03.202 there is story on page 2 with the title "Anger of people against TV Channels". It reports some TV channels had telecast reports with partiality creating tensions between two communities.

12. 05.03.2002 page 11. A highly communal, objectionable, provocative, inflammatory and anti Muslim article of Manoj Gandhi, some excerpts are as under.

Heading-Gory incidents of Godhra-Ahmedabad-dangerous game of Khoon ka badla khoon

Big heading (1) Conspiracy of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists Gujarat is ablaze (2) Dangerous reactions to instigation of tolerant Hinduism. Subheading in block letters (1) After 50 years of Independence what is the reason of Muslims' hatred towards Hindus of Hindustan? (2) After
the communal riots of 1992 and Godhra incident. Muslims should learn that the results of instigating tolerant Hindus can be dangerous. (3) It fundamentalist Muslim does not understand this truth, then innocent Muslims will continue to be sacrificed in this gory game.

13. 06.03.2002 page 1-8 columns heading "Danger to Hindus" 'Terrible conspiracy of retaliating attack after Haj". Subheading-"Fears of RDX bomb blast or plane hijack.

14. 24.04.2002 page 1 continued on page 9
Title-'Hindu set ablaze, young lady lost doubtfully (sic)-as sunnat for fanatic
mobs-only chappal and packet of Lays found".

15. 26.04.2002 page 5
Title 'Ladies going to Dhalgarwad for shopping despite police advise were stabbed by sticks'.

16. 27.04.2002 page 2 Title "Stern string powder which can melt a human being found- white powder sent to laboratory for analysis -police astonished seeing 15 kilo of powder -petrol bomb, country made bomb, kerosene and bottles seized".

17. Bogus story "Sandesh" 27.04.2002 page 1 continued on page 14
Title-subtitle 'Try to kill cows by throwing at them an explosive liquid; police foil an attempt to set the city on fire" translation of bogus story. 'Anti-social elements attacked the chali of famous jagannath mandir on the night of Thursday and more than that their intention was to set on fire the entire state. Police went on time handled the situation. A conspiracy to burn alive two cows of Dharwad.

Condemning the incident that happened at Godhra on 27th Feb.2002, the complainants requested for intervention against misuse of the freedom of the print media in Gujarat.

The respondent, Managing Editor, Sandesh in his written statement dated 12.09.2002 submitted that the complainants had not submitted any details about their address, residence or profession. In view of the same, as pet' the respondent, there was a doubt whether the complaint was genuine and bonafide. The complaint was in the form of a story rather than in the form of details.

The respondent requested the Council to dismiss the complaint as they claimed it was nothing but an attempt on the part of certain disgruntled and disappointed competitors to tarnish the image of the newspaper's publication in the eyes of the public at large.

According to the respondent, "Sandesh" was maintaining high standard of journalistic ethics and had never indulged in any activity, as stated in the Memorandum.

The respondent-editor, Sandesh, Ahmedabad in his further written statement dated 12.12.2002 submitted that their newspaper Sandesh had reported the details which had been published by all other newspapers in the State and which had been repeatedly aired by the T.V. channels. So the reporting in the newspaper was the outcome of the events, which had taken place for which no newspaper was required to be dealt with under the provisions of Press Council Act. The Respondent requested that show cause notice may be withdrawn.

All, the above eight complaints came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee on 28th and 29th April 2003 at Ahmedabad. Shri A.J. Yagnik, Advocate appeared for the complainants, namely, Dr. Shujaat Vali and Shri Usman Haji Ahmad Qurayshi. S/Shri M.A. Kharadi and M.T.M. Alakim, Advocates appeared for Dr. Shakeel Ahmed. Shri P.K. Jani, Advocate appeared for the respondent newspaper-Sandesh. There was no appearance on behalf of Gujarat Samachar. Shri Batuk Vohra, author of one of the impugned articles was also present amongst the audience.

Shri Syed Shahabuddin, however, in his Letter dated 15.4.2003 in response to the notice of hearing unformed that he would like the Inquiry Committee of the Council to take suo-motu cognizance or the blatant violation of the code of conduct by the Press.

Shri A.J. Yagnik, Advocate appearing for the first two complainants submitted that the complainants have been dedicated readers of Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh since long and have all regards for these two newspapers. However they took serious objection to the publication of two irresponsible news items in Sandesh issues dated 1.3.2002 and 6.3.2002 alleging rape and chopping off of the breasts of two women found dead and the second report alleging that the intelligence report had indicated possibility of terrorist attack after the returns of the Haj Pilgrims. The counsel further submitted that while the Sandesh claimed that the impugned report of 1.3.2002 was based on the contents of the letter dated 28.2.2002 written by Shri Shambu Prasad Shukla, Area Secretary, VHP, Panchmahal (Godhra) to Collector, Panchmahal with copies endorsed to District Police Headquarters and Sandesh, the paper itself had made no efforts to verify the facts. Further, there was nothing about the breast cutting in the said letter of Area Secretary of VHP, the translation of which reads as follows: "Tire impact of massacre in Sabarmati Express at Godhra yesterday on 27.02.2002 has not subsided and till now we arc receiving more and more tragic information. Yesterday from the same train some anti-social elements kidnapped two-three Hindus girls. Vishwa Hindu Parishad Office at Kalol and the workers from tire surrounding villages received the news of the Hindu girls kidnapped from the Sabarmati Express at Godhra. These girls were forcibly taken to some wilderness and were mercilessly raped by the hooligans and were that killed and their dead bodies were thrown away in a small pond near Kalol. Some people saw these bodies anti so far as our knowledge is goes no post mortem were carried out. As Per the latest information that we received, the hooligans had poured Petrol on the dead bodies and set them on fire so that no evidence could be traced. This is a very serious matter, and we request you to take immediate step in this matter".

The Counsel reiterated that there was nothing in this letter to justify the report. Moreover, the newspaper 'Sandesh' should have verified the facts from the Superintendent of Police of the district, where the so-called incident had allegedly taken place.

Regarding the report charging that more attacks would take place on the return of Haj Pilgrims, he alleged that the report was not only without basis, it had unabashedly attempted to provoke communal feelings and enmity. Though the paper claimed that another paper 'Asian Age' had carried similar report, the thrust of that report was different. He also placed reliance on the norms already laid down by the Press Council to justify his objections.

Shri M.A. Kharadi, Advocate for Dr. Sakeel Ahmed drew the attention of the Inquiry Committee towards publication of fabricated and inflammatory news reports in 28.2.2002 issue of Sandesh as follows:

(b) From railway coach 10-15 Hindu Young girls dragged and abducted by religious fanatics. In some places it was stated that 4 young girls or 8-10 young girls.

(c) Hindu leader named Rajendra Shah is quoted to have said that it was a shameful attack on innocent Ramsevaks and hence Hindu should get organized and take revenge and go for "Khoon ka badla khoon") (Avenge blood with blood).

The counsel for Dr. Shakeel Ahmad filed a bunch of clippings pertaining to Sandesh and also filed an affidavit in furtherance to the complaint.

Shri P.K. Jani, Advocate or Sandesh presented the defence in all the cases pertaining to Sandesh took preliminary objection to the non-filing of the complaint by Dr Shakeel Ahmed in conformity with the Inquiry Regulations, and more particularly the clippings on which the complainant was relying.

The Inquiry Committee accepted the documents and produced by the complainant with a note from the counsel for Sandesh to the effect that the cognizance of the same may not be taken by the Inquiry Committee except to the extent that they replicated the annexures already received in the complaint of Shri Usman Haji Ahmad Qurayshi and the other clippings annexed and the reply filed may not be considered or taken note of.

Shri P.K. Jani, Advocate representing Sandesh submitted that a number of organizations had risen against the Godhra carnage on 28th February 2002 and Sandesh was apprehending danger had appealed to the people not to forget the path of non-violence. The counsel further submitted that with the rapid development of means of communication such as TV News channels, Mobile phones arid SMS even people in remote areas instantly knew about the happenings in Godhra. Political leaders visited the State of Gujarat and gave objective, subjective and biased speeches. Sandesh had tried to give space to every viewpoint.

Shri P.K. Jani submitted that the Sandesh had maintained due objectivity while reporting the news items dated 1.3.2002 and 6.3.2002. A Bandh Call was given on 28.2.2002 at the instance of VHP following the Godhra incident but the State authorities had failed in providing information to the press. The Respondent counsel submitted that out of 123 publications in the State, not even a single newspaper, except the respondent, appealed to the public to maintain peace and calm. The newspapers were flooded with rumours and biased TV coverage. The news item dated 1.3.2002, regarding the treatment meted out to two women, was based on the information collected by their reporter written and verbal and had been published in good faith. They had received no denial of the same.

As regard, news report dated 6.3.2002; the counsel submitted that it was based on three sources. The information given by Superintendent of Police of the IB department to the Media. Asian Age (Gujarat Age) had published the same news two days earlier. Gujarat Samachar also published the news. Thus, while the media at large had carried the report that Hajis were trying to create trouble, Sandesh had, exercised a maximum restraint. However, all the apprehensions of the newspapers came to be true with events that followed including killings, explosion etc. The counsel submitted that Sandesh had balanced the obligation of the press with citizens right to information.

The counsel submitted that Sandesh was a newspaper of long standing with 80 years in the forefront of the media scene in Gujarat and espoused the cause of the public. The counsel stressed in conclusion that the reportage of Sandesh was in public interest carried in good faith and for public good. Sandesh had acted in a responsible manner and it had never attempted to inflame communal passion at any point of time. The counsel prayed that the complaints might be dismissed.

Before proceeding to examine the matters on merit, the Committee observed that the unfortunate incidents in Gujarat between February-May 2002 has underscored the importance of the media in imparting to the citizens at large, information and analysis in a balanced and impartial manner. The media, as a chronicle of tomorrow's history, owes an undeniable duty to the future to record events as simple untailored facts. The analysis of the events and opinion thereon are a different genre altogether. The treatment of the two also thus has necessarily to be different. In times crisis, facts unadorned and simply put, with due care and restraint, cannot be reasonably objected to in a democracy. However, a heavy responsibility devolves on the author of opinion articles. The author has to ensure that not only are his or her analysis free from any personal preferences, prejudices or notions, but also they are based on verified, accurate and established facts and do not tend to foment disharmony or enmity between castes, communities and races.

Insofar as the role of the Press Council is concerned, its prime objective is to awaken the press to the need for conforming to the highest ethical standards. Even in its quasi-judicial role the Press Council does not don the mantle of a taskmaster. Its aims not to punish but to act as a conscience keeper and advisor to provoke the media to introspect on the ethicality of its reportage. This is possible, only if cooperation is extended from all quarters including the press in its own interest.

Coming to the cases in hand, the Committee expressed its displeasure over the absence of Gujarat Samachar. It noted that Guiarat Samachar and Sandesh were leading dailies of the state that reached out to the people in the language they identified with. The impact of their reports was thus felt in every nook and corner of the State. The Committee appreciated the contention of the counsel for Sandesh that the paper had only abided by their duty to inform the public and while people had come forward to complain about some of their reporting the appeal carried by the paper for communal harmony and reports covering the incidents likely to promote peace were not brought to the fore. However, at the same time, the Committee felt that the paper had been negligent in basing its reports of 1.3.02 regarding mutilation of the bodies of two females allegedly kidnapped from the Sabarmati Express on the document/letter reportedly addressed to the Collector, Panchmahal, Godhra. This document did not mention the prime accusation in the news report and he material on record did not indicate that the veracity of the charge had been established at any stage. Further even though the reported incident had been publicly denied and this denial reported by another paper, Sandesh did nothing to inform its readers about the same. Similarly the report relating to apprehension of increase in acts of terrorism after the return of Haj pilgrims appeared to aim at in creating a sensation on the surcharged atmosphere. The facts therein did not conform to the information given out by the concerned authorities. Though the committee did not accept the blanket condemnation of Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar as reported in the article of Batuk Vohra, it did not appreciate the headlines like "Godhra killings a challenge to the rise of Hindutva" in February 28, 2002 issue of Gujarat Samachar or even some of its later reports/articles that exhorted Hindus to rise as a class against the Muslims. The Committee noted that a greater onus lies in times of crisis on the regional media rather than the national media, in restoring the faith of the public in the law and order situation and encouraging communal harmony and amity.

The Committee accordingly recommends to the Council to censure the respondent dailies for the infraction of the norms &f journalistic conduct some of the reports before it and to advise the media, including electronic media, to introspect on its role in the coverage of these riots, learn from its errors and ensure that in future at least its reportage serves to douse the passions of divisive forces and encourages the people of this country to rise above the division of caste and creed.

IX Objectionable clippings relating to Gujarat riots for suo-motu action against Vishva Hindu Samachar, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran, The Telegraph, Asian Age, Rashtriya Sahara and The Mainstream.

The Press Council of India. came across a series of news reports/articles/pictures published by a section of print media after the Godhra carnage and during riots in Gujarat, which it found prime facie to be sensational and exaggerated, propagating hate and fuelling disorder.

Suo-motu action was initiated against some of them under the provisions of section 13(1) read with Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978. These were:

1. Hindustan Times, New Delhi (dated 6.4.2002).
Objectionable Title "Muslim school kids targeted in Gujarat".

2. Dainik Jagran (1.03.2002)
provocative photographs under the caption "Jalta Gujarat".

3. Dainik Jagran (28.2.2002)
Objectionable title "Do Hazar Logon Ne Chun-Chun Kar 'Ramsevkaon'
Ko Mara".

4. Vishwa Hindu Samachar, Monthly, Title -"Third Face of Terrorism- Television Channels and English Newspapers", sourced from the Times of India issue dated 10.7.2002 Report captioned "VHP Monthly terms Modi Chhote Sardar" objectionable portion section of the media works on the policy of divide and rule', just like the Britishers." "When lakhs of Hindus are killed in Jammu and Kashmir, farm labourers butchered in Bihar and bomb blasts rock Andhra Pradesh, nobody asks the respective CMs to resign. Then why has Modi been targeted to step down? it said.

5. The Telegraph, Kolkata (dated 11.04.2002)
Objectionable title "If you don't like them, set them on fire".

6. The Telegraph, Kolkata (dated 17.04.2002)
Title "Accused: minister in Modi govt." "Rape horrors in report" along with provocative photograph captioned "A rioter brandishes a stick during the violence on February 28".

7. The Telegraph (dated 26.03.2002)
Title: "Talking about Gujarat"
Objection: showing photograph of the remains of the burnt people.

8. The Asian Age dated 23.04.2002)
Objectionable title "If you don't like people, kill them".

9. Rashtriya Sahara (dated 26.04.2002)
Title: "Gujarat in Alpansankyon ka Allah Ke Sivay Koi Nahi".

11. The Asian Age (dated 04.04.2002)
Objectionable photographs captioned "Communal Violence: A policeman inspects the charred remains of a Muslim in Abasna village in riot hit Gujarat on Wednesday. (Reuters)".

Show-cause notices were issued to the Editors of aforesaid newspapers on 25.09.2002.

The respondent editor, Mainstream in his written statement dated 07.10.2002 stated that the journal, never published any material that could inflame base communal passions, rather it has always fought against any such trend in Indian journalism and will continue to do so in future.

Regarding the objectionable write up, the respondent submitted that it is the policy of the journal to accommodate diverse points of view. The write up in question was a communication received from Shri N. Jamal Ansari in response to an article by Mr. Batuk Vora and was accordingly published as a communication and not as an article. The respondent submitted that another article published in the issue dated 27.04.2002 under the heading 'wake up or perish' presented totally different point of view.

According to the respondent a major section of the country's population felt humiliated and hurt after the incident of Gujarat and the journal has only accommodated their feeling in writing.

The respondent editor, Dainik Jagran in his written statement dated 14.10.2002 submitted that the news item in question was based on facts and truth and nothing was exaggerated in it. Further their intention was not to inflame the communal tension, but rather to project the truth before the public.

The respondent further submitted that though the heading of the impugned news item was not wrong yet they will be more alert and conscious in future while selecting the head lines.

The respondent editor, Telegraph, Kolkata submitted in his written statement dated 14.11.2002 that the Telegraph has been maintaining in the editorials/reports from Gujarat that the State did not witness a confrontation between antagonistic religious communities which is what a communal riot represent, but a concerted attack by Hindus on the Muslims with the intention to kill and destroy. Retaliation by Muslims was so few and far between as to be inconsequential. According to Telegraph, what happened in Gujarat in March-April 2002 was not a communal riot but a pogrom. Thus, the Telegraph believes that the guidelines laid down for covering communal riots are not relevant in the present case.

The editor of Rashtriya Sahara in his written statement dated 19.4.2003 submitted that the Editor, 'Communalism Combat', Ms. Tista Setalwad had prepared a report on Gujarat Riots and respondent newspaper among other newspapers brought the same before the public. The captioned news item was published in Rashtriya Sahara after having discussion with the riot victims Shri Saleem who had come to Delhi to meet Cabinet Ministers and National Commission for Minorities for providing protection and while publishing the said news they had no intention to provoke communal riots, rather the newspaper had even suppressed the contents of V.C.Ds given to them by the victims, which were provocative. In the last para of the news item they had even published the statement of Shri Mohammad Yakub, which speaks of the communal harmony. It was further submitted that while publishing the captioned news item they had taken adequate care and caution but if any part of the published news item was objectionable in the opinion of the Press Council, then the paper apologized for the same. The paper submitted that before coming to any conclusion the Enquiry Report of "Editors Guild of India" may also be considered.

The counsel for Vishwa Hindu Samachar requested the Council vide his letter dated 21.10.2002 for details of the impugned report and was in response supplied the article of Times of India and the guidelines of the Council on communal writings.

When the matters came up for consideration before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28th and 29th April 2003, there was no appearance before it. However the representative of Vishwa Hindu Samachar who had entered appearance, left after filing written submissions. Further, in response to the notice of hearing of the Council, the editor, Mainstream in his letter dated April 17, 2003 had submitted that he had nothing to add to the submissions made in the written statement.

The counsel for Vishwa Hindu Samachar in his letter dated 28.4.2003 submitted that the notice of hearing was prima facie contrary to the principles of natural justice and well settled legal position as it did not carry complete details about the show cause notice, charges for which inquiry was to be conducted or the documents relied upon.

The Inquiry Committee examined the material on record for a comprehensive view of the conduct of the press. The Committee opined that in the situation prevailing in Gujarat at that point the press had a prime facie duty to report the truth. The reports however needed to be so couched so as not to inflame communal passions. Yet several reports scanned by it carried sensational headlines and the body content thereof were also not worded in a way that would induce communal harmony. Not many papers covered the incidents that personified communal unity and brotherhood in the midst of communal madness. It recalled at this juncture the following guidelines already certified:

"News, views or comments relating to communal or religious disputes/clashes should be published after proper verification of facts and presented with due caution and restraint in manner which is conducive the creation of an atmosphere congenial to communal harmony, amity and peace. Sensational, provocative and alarming headlines are to be avoided. Acts of communal violence or vandalism should be reported in a manner as may not undermine the people's confidence in the law and order machinery of the state. Giving community-wise figures of the victims of communal riot, or writing about the incident in a style which is likely to inflame passions, aggravate the tension, or accentuate the strained relations between the Communities/religious groups concerned, or which has a potential to exacerbate the trouble, should be avoided".

The Committee expressed hope that the press will introspect on its coverage of riots and self determine its role in similar situations in future. The sensational coverage of the electronic media, which is still in a nascent stage, cannot serve as a yardstick for the print media that has more than a centuries expenses to fall back upon. Moreover two wrongs do not make a right. Thus the Committee hopes that the press will be more diligent and restrained in the future. It feels that the media would be well advised to give due consideration to the implications and impact of its coverage of this and similar instances when truth and factual accuracy alone cannot be the criterion to determine the suitability of a publication that could as well foment passions as douse them.

The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dispose of the matter with these observations.

X.: Reference from an anonymous complainant regarding publication of an objectionable photograph in The Hindustan Times, New Delhi.

The Secretariat of the Press Council received an anonymous complaint on 18.3.2002 against The Hindustan Times, New Delhi regarding publication of a photograph in its issue dated 5.3.2002, under the by-line of Kaushik Ramaswamy/HT, showing a four year old child who had sustained 90% burns during riots in Ahmedabad. The footnote appended to the said photograph read as follows - "Haunted look: Four year old Asif who sustained 90% burns, died a few hours after this picture was taken at the civil hospital in Ahmadabad on Monday. All nine members of the boy's family were earlier killed in the riots in Narod". According to the complainant, the photograph was intended to create tension in the minds of minority community arid to provoke them to violence and also to confuse the people.

Comments of the respondent The Hindustan Times, New Delhi were invited on 17.6.2002.

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28th April, 2003 when the respondent's counsel, Shri Gaurav Mathur, sought adjournment. The matter was adjourned to the next day when he again appeared and filed comments at the time of hearing on behalf of the respondent-Hindustan Times.

Learned counsel for the respondent newspaper in his written statement dated 28.4.2003 raised preliminary objection to the effect that complaint was not maintainable as it was from an unknown person who had not complied with the procedure laid down under Section 3 (1) (a) and Section 3 (1) (c) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Press Council of India had also not only called upon the paper to file its comments in place of issuing show cause notice to the Hindustan Times Ltd and/or its Editor so as to enable them to file a written statement in defence prior to calling upon the Hindustan Times Ltd to appear before the Inquiry Committee for the hearing. He requested that the complaint should be dismissed in limine and the proceeding for hearing and inquiry be dropped, in the interest of justice.

The Counsel for the Hindustan Times in his oral arguments reiterated the preliminary objection. The counsel, however, proceeded to make his submissions on merits, on the advise of the Inquiry Committee to present a defence on the substance of the charges instead of going into technicalities as the object of the Press Council was to instil ethics rather than to punish. On merits, the counsel for the Hindustan Times argued that the reporter was prompted to publish the photograph of the child to show the difference between the pleasant and unpleasant situations. Further, the reporter had duly verified the facts as required. The only motive behind the publication of the photograph was compassion and sympathy for human beings. Every care had been taken to avoid passing any judgment or appending offensive remarks to the impugned photograph. However, he emphasized that the mentioning the name of the victim was incidental and in fact the reporter expected the people to be sufficiently moved by the photograph to refrain from further rioting. He added that the photograph was entrenched in the then prevalent circumstances and was newsworthy and that it was not the intention of the newspaper to inflame passion.

The Inquiry Committee considered the photograph, its caption and the written submissions as well as oral arguments advanced by the Respondent. The Inquiry Committee noted that the counsel for the Hindustan Times had justified the publication of the photograph on the ground that it was published to awaken the readers to the outcome of violence and wrath involving even the innocent children. The Inquiry Committee felt that the publication of the photograph was a borderline case as the eye-catching photograph positioned on the front page evoked simultaneously, the feelings of revulsion and sympathy. However, it opined that the name of the victim given in the caption below the photograph and reference about the family could have been avoided since it had appeared at a time when tension was all pervasive and could, in. the circumstances, have the tendency to arouse anger of the minority community during riots.

The Inquiry Committee recalled Norm 23 of the Guide to Journalistic Ethics, reproduced as follows: - "Photo-journalism is an important part of the print media. While intrusion through photography into personal grief likely to hurt sentiments or arouse communal passions, should be avoided, publication of photographs serving the larger public interest can not be termed as unethical or in bad taste." At the same time, another norm (24 C of the Guide to Journalistic Ethics) advises the press to avoid mentioning the names of communities of the victims of the riots. The editor should have thus been more vigilant in allowing the publication of the photograph with the caption appended.

A question had arisen before the Inquiry Committee whether the reporter or the newspaper had any mens rea in publishing the photograph to inflame passion or arouse ill feelings in the minds of the public, in general or particular. The Inquiry Committee found the answer in negative, as the publication of the photograph of the child wrapped in bandage could well be an eye-opener for the rioters. The press, however, would be well advised to give due consideration to the implication and impact of its coverage of this and similar instances when truth and factual accuracy alone cannot be criterion to determine the suitability of a publication that could as well foment passions as douse them. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in the matter and the editor has to allow his conscience to guide him up the path of ethical rectitude.

The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dispose of the matter with these observations.

XI-XIII. Shri Hindumal M. Shah, Versus Deccan Chronicle,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

This undated complaint received by the Council on 12.4.2002 was filed by Shri Hindumal M. Shah of Kurnool, Adoni (Andhra Pradesh) against Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad issues dated 2.4.2002 and 29.4.2002. The complainant drew the attention of the Council to the first article that accused two ministers of the Gujarat Cabinet, Shri Ashok Bhatt and Shri I.K. Jadeja of sitting in Police Control Room to direct the killings on 28.2.2002. Captioned: "Hindutva as a Cast Weapon" by Shri Praful Bidwai in issue dated 2.4.2002, the impugned comment reads as follow:

"Indeed new evidence is emerging of the shocking role played by two of Modi's own Cabinet colleagues on the crucial first day of the post-Godhra violence. Health Minister Ashok Bhatt and Urban Development Minister I.K. Jadeja personally occupied police control rooms on February 28 to direct the "revenge" attacks. It is during their presence there that former MP Ehsan Jaffrey's desperate; six hour-long appeals for rescue were ignored before he was charred to death. That was also the beginning of the Naroda Pativa butchery of 90 Muslims. The activities of the first day set the stage for the massacre that followed."

The complainant submitted that if the allegations are proved, the concerned ministers should be punished otherwise the author of the impugned news item should suffer severe punishment for indirectly provoking people". He pointed out that the impugned comment had been further highlighted separately in a box to the article.

In his further complaint lay against the article of 29.4.2002 by (Late) Shri Abu Abraham Captioned 'The Truth About Godhra" which reproduced, from Mainstream, a version providing reasons behind the massacre at Godhra. It concluded, "Reliable sources have reported all this information and cannot be doubted." The complainant expressed his disbelief about the narration reproduced by the writer of the incident leading to the Godhra carnage.

The complainant urged strong action to admonish writers and publisher who he alleged indulge in this dangerous game in the prevailing situations intended "not to heal wounds but only to keep them alive". Requesting the Council to take necessary action in the matter he wondered whether the author had made personal inquiries to write the 'truth' after two months. He also complained against the article by Shri Prem Shankar Jha in Outlook giving out the same story but the Chairman of the Press Council on preliminary examination found that this matter did not disclose a preliminary ground for inquiry as Shri Jha appeared to be the lone columnist who had cared to check the authenticity of the provocative e-mail relating to Godhra incident and written that the report being circulated was false. He infact deserved to be praised for his efforts.

Comments of the respondent Deccan Chronicle were invited on 25.6.2002. The editor Deccan Chronicle in his written statement dated 24.5.2003 submitted that the complaints were with regard to articles written by two eminent writers, one of whom, Abu Abraham, has since passed away. Both writers clearly mention, as can be made out from h reading of the articles that they were quoting from various sources. It was with considerable thought. due consideration and care to their enormous reputations that Bidwai aim Abraham wrote those words. Their articles were to be viewed in the context of time when they were written and the event, which they were writing about.

It was further submitted that the complainant was a chronic letter writer to newspapers including Deccan Chronicle and he appeared to have taken delight in firing his guns from the shoulder of the Press Council. Besides in no way was he an injured party. If the disagreed with what was published, there were other fora for him to vent his emotions.

The matter were called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28-29th April 2003. Neither the complainant nor the respondent was represented before it.

The Committee on careful consideration of the material on record noted that the subject matter of these complaints were two articles, one written by Shri Praful Bidwai and the other by late Shri Abu Abraham. The respondent editor had defended the publication of the articles on the ground that the articles were written by renowned persons who had also quoted various sources in the same. The Committee did not fully agree with the defence of the editor. It was of the opinion that though the articles were written by reputed persons, the space for them had been provided by the editor. The editor should thus have examined and satisfied himself about the propriety of publishing such articles as have the tendency of inciting communal feelings and promote discord and mistrust. The information in the impugned articles had the tendency to arouse and indirectly fan violence. The contents of the article, the Committee opined, warranted factual verification in view of the prevailing scenario at that time as had been done by another writer Shri Prem Shankar Jha. However, the Committee accepted that the newspaper was not directly responsible for the impugned story. The Committee, therefore, recommended to the Council to all6w the matter to rest with an advise to the editor to screen carefully articles likely to affect public sentiments in times of crises and be more circumspect in their selection for publication.

XIV. Major Gen. Don Patrick (Retd.), The Hindu,
Ooty, Tamil Nadu Versus Chennai.

Major Gen. (Retd.) Don Patrick of Ooty, Tamil Nadu in his communication dated 18.04.2002 addressed to The Hindu, Chennai, with a copy inter-alia endorsed to Press Council of India for appropriate action, objected to publication of an article captioned "Mr. Vajpayee, the Swayamsevak" by Shri Kuldip Nayyar in its 'Opinion' column dated 16.04.2002. His specific objection was to the statement "this scheme of exterminating a particular community had been prepared long before Godhra and would have been carried out even without the gruesome Godhra incident."

Shri Don Patrick in his letter to the Council and to respondent paper allegedly raised as many as 14 questions with regard to planning of the riots and submitted that the author owes it to the public and concerned citizens to answer the questions. The complainant averred that if Shri Nayyar had shared the secret information before the Godhra incident, the carnage that followed could have been prevented. The complainant's version was published in The Hindu, issue dated 22.04.2002.

Comments of the respondent editor, The Hindu, Chennai were invited on 17.06.2002. No reply was filed. However, in response to the notice for hearing, the paper asked for another copy of the complaint and then contended that they were unable to understand 'the complaint and that since they received several letters daily, they might have missed out the complainant's letter.

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on April 28-29, 2003. The notice of hearing sent to the complainant was received back from the courier company with the remarks 'please give phone number'. The address of the complainant is correct but no phone number is available on the letter of the complainant. In the circumstances, the Committee decided to deal the matter on its merits.

On perusal of the record, the Committee noted that the complainant had referred to a particular statement in the impugned article and raised some questions regarding the nature of the scheming/pre-planning of the riots and as to whether Shri Kuldip Nayyar had shared this information with the authorities. The Hindu having published the article of Shri Nayyar had also promptly accorded space to the letter of the complainant in full to allow the readers to judge the issue. It had thus acted in due compliance with the ethics of journalism. Therefore, the Committee opined that no further action was needed in the matter. It recommends to the Council to allow the matter to rest accordingly.

This complaint dated 16.4.2002 was filed by Dr. K.P. Hardas, Nagpur against The Indian Express, Mumbai for publication of an article captioned "Muharram arrived too soon" with sub-caption "Can we salvage anything from the debris in Gujarat?" by Shri Mushirul Hassan in its issue dated 20.3.2002 and for non publication of his letter written to the editor in response thereto. The complainant has alleged that the article in question was deceptive and petty. The complainant in his open letter addressed directly to the author of the article, Prof Mushirul Hassan, had stated that the article gave an impression that the judicial enquiry ordered by the Gujarat Government ought to be cancelled as the author in the article had given a final judgment that RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal - a BJP combine carried out the carnage against innocent Gujarati speaking Khojas, Boharas, Memons. Countering the author's observations one by one the complainant had concluded that the loss of human lives is loss of human lives and it did not matter which religion they practiced.

The respondent editor, Indian Express, Nagpur in his comments dated 27.6.2002, submitted that the "letter to the editor" was not sent to the editor at Nagpur but to the editor-in-chief at Delhi, hence it could not be published. He also adverted to the fact that three months had since elapsed and the letter was no longer topical or relevant. The Resident Editor further submitted that the paper had over the last several months carried both sides of the issue involved, giving them ample coverage. Prof Mushirul Hassan's article covered one such viewpoint. Quoting from the Norm laid down by the Council he submitted that the editor enjoys wide discretionary power in selection and publication of any material in a newspaper. The respondent submitted that the letter of the complainant contains personal remarks and references to Dr. Mushirul Hassan, author of the article. However, the respondent would welcome any letter from the complainant on current topics.

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28 - 29th April 2003. The complainant Dr. K.P. Hardas appeared in person while there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent newspaper.

The complainant in his oral submissions contended that he had written an open letter to Prof. Mushirul Hassan, the author of the article and a copy of the same was sent to the editor of Indian Express. Since this was an open letter, the newspaper was morally obliged to publish the same. He added that it was incorrect to publish opinion articles when a Judicial Commission had been appointed and had not given its report. By publishing the article the author had defamed the whole country. He further stated that he was in the habit of studying all the articles of public interest and had been making an in-depth study of the articles and offering his views on them. In the past also his open letters addressed to eminent authors had been published/responded to.

The Inquiry Committee carefully considered the material on record and the oral submissions of the complainant. It noted that the impugned article commented on a matter of vital public interest. The complainant as an enlightened citizen of the country had given his valuable views on the same, though he has not been able to produce before the Committee a copy of the covering letter addressed to the paper. The respondent editor in his written statement has also offered to publish any letter by complainant on a current topic. The Committee observed that though the editor had laid emphasis on the need for topicality of the subject of the letter, Dr. Hardas's comments were prompted by public interest. Thus, if he writes a fresh letter to the editor on the issue without making any personal remarks against the author, the Indian Express should consider publishing the same. Before parting with the matter the Committee recorded its appreciation of the keen interest shown by Dr. K.P. Hardas in the in-depth study of articles of public interest and formulating his opinion thereon.

The Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to dispose of the matter in terms of the above observations.

XVI. The President,            Versus            TheTelegraph.
          Jeevit Hlindusthan,                                    Kolkata.
          Kolkata.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi forwarded to the Press Council of India a copy of the letter dated 22nd May, 2002 of the President, Jeevit Hindusthan, Kolkata drawing the attention of the Home Ministry, Government of India towards the publication of a photograph in "The Telegraph" dated 22.5.2002 with the request to take appropriate action. In the impugned photograph an old Muslim is shown collecting papers, may be of a book and the caption to it say, "A 73-years-old man collects the ashes of the Quran in Ahmedabad (AFP)".

The President, Jeevit Hindusthan has alleged that such publicity could incite hatred among the people and increase tension in the disturbed areas. He has submitted the media should give support to peace and normalcy instead of putting fuel in the fire.

A show cause notice was issued to The Telegraph, Kolkata on 9.8.2002.
No reply has been filed.

When the matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28-29th April 2003, there was no appearance before it from either side.

The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the impugned photograph. In the photograph an old man is shown who is collecting the burnt paper. But for the title of the photograph no one can say that those were the burnt pages of Quran, which the old man was collecting. It is the caption that might have hurt the religious sentiments of the community. In a situation when communal violence was on, the editor should have been more diligent in giving the caption. The Committee thus advised the respondent editor to be more careful in future in publishing news reports/photographs in tense situations. It recommends to the Council accordingly.

This complaint dated 9.4.2002 was filed by Shri Krishen Kak, LAS (Retd.), New Delhi against The Times of India for publishing an allegedly objectionable article on Gujarat riots titled "Hindustan Hamara - I can never sing that song again" by Shri Harsh Mander in the issue dated 20.3.2002. The impugned article had also been circulated over the web under the title "Cry the Beloved Country".

The impugned article labelled the incidents in Gujarat as a planned massacre when civil and police administration abdicated responsibility and the famed Gujarati philanthropy was nowhere in evidence. The article lamented that the loss that- the Muslims suffered appeared to be of concern only to them.

The complainant submitted that it was highly improper of the writer of the impugned article, Shri Harsh Mander, an IAS officer on deputation to a British charity called Action-aid, to publicly air his politico-religious views, and accuse the state administration of connivance in the violence. The complainant also questioned the credentials of the author.

The complainant alleged that. Mr. Mander's article was highly irresponsible, blatantly biased and there was nothing in it to show that he had verified the stories that he passed off as facts. According to the complainant the published article and its language was biased, inflammatory, damaging to public morale and faith in the government, serving to increase communal hatred, offensive to public sensibilities and designed to undermine the rule of law. He also alleged there had been a complete failure on part of the editor of Times of India to perform the basic editing function of checking on the facts, and to maintain a high professional standard, sense of responsibility and public service. The complainant has alleged that the writer, the editor and the newspaper have colluded to condemn an entire class of service officers, a community, and a state administration in a witch-hunting trial by the media.

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28-29th April 2003. There was no appearance before it. However, in response to the notice of hearing the complainant who was Delhi based, vide his letter dated 17.4.2003 expressed his inability to attend the hearing at Ahmedabad.

At the outset the Committee considered the objections of the complainant about hearing of the case being scheduled at Ahmedabad. The Committee observed that as the Committee at Ahmedabad was dealing with all the cases relating to the reportage of the incidents of violence at Gujarat, it was appropriate to hear the instant matter also at Ahmedabad. The presence of the complainant was not necessary, as he had already given all the facts in his complaint. Thus, the Inquiry Committee overruled the objections of the complainant.

Before dealing the matter on merits, the Inquiry Committee expressed its deep concern over the indifferent and irresponsible attitude of the Times of the India in not filing its comments in response to Council's letter dated 17.6.2002 and in not being represented before the Inquiry Committee to present its defence in a matter of great public importance.

On merits of the case the Committee noted that article at several points reiterated rumours that were being circulated at the relevant time. The truthfulness of the facts mentioned therein had not been established at any point of time till then but Shri Mander had chosen to base his views and sentiments on them, and put pen to the opinion thus formed by him. This is not to say that the said incidents may not have taken place at all but in the situation prevailing at that time, it was not very easy to sift fact from rumours and conjecture and it was expected of the author as a responsible serving officer as well as of the respondent paper of repute like the Times of India, to be more restrained and circumspect in pronouncing a denouncement of the whole system in a communally surcharged atmosphere. The Committee feels that a greater responsibility devolved on the editor of the paper in exercising his discretion to select articles for publication in such a situation. The Committee recommended to the Council to advise the Times of India accordingly.

Foot Note: Ms. Sabina 1nderjeet, member did not participate in the deliberations for the reason of her association with the Times of India.

             1. Shri Sharad C. Mishma,             Versus               The Times of India,
             2. Dr. DN. Gadhok,                                                 Mumbai.
             3. Shri Har Dayal Bhalla
             4.Shri D.C. Gupta,
             (Mumbai)

Shri Sharad C. Mishma, Former Economic Adviser, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, (ii) Dr. D.N. Gadhok, Former Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, (iii) Shri Har Dayal Bhalla, Former General Manage', Western Railway and (iv) Dr. D.C. Gupta, Former President, Birla Yamaha & Indian Tools Ltd. Mumbai filed this joint complaint dated 23.4.2002 against the Times of India, Mumbai edition alleging transgression of the norms of journalistic ethics.
The complainants submitted that by publishing an article captioned:

"The Mask is Off-A Tale of Two Hindus" by Siddharth Varadarajan on 19.4.2002 and a report captioned: "UK mission report may put Modi in dock" on 20.4.2002, the respondent, Times of India has violated the norms of journalistic conduct prescribed by Press Council of India which enjoin on the Press to eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material.

The box to the impugned article captioned: "The Mask is off" states "a Hindu woman killed for saving hem Muslim friend in Gujarat has shown more courage and dignity than Prime Minister Vajpayee. BJP's project of 'Hindu' separatism will bring disaster to Indians. The attack on Gujarat's Muslims is an attack on all Indians".

The complainants have submitted that in the impugned article, "the macabre description of Geetaben's dead body is imaginary based on her photograph reportedly sent by the resident editor of the Times of India two weeks ago. From the strident tone of the article it is felt that the author had deliberately gained time to equip himself for the competitive race in Modi-bating projecting himself and the newspaper he works for as the champion of the so called secularism. Rather than trying to restore communal harmony he has tried to open the old wounds. No evidence has been adduced in the article to authenticate the description of the lady having been stripped, dragged naked and killed due to her having been in love with a Muslim boy nor has the reported stated that he was himself an eyewitness to the incident." The complainants have submitted that the "author's intention is malafide to discredit the Hindu Community as a whole. His article has helped to add fuel to the communal fire raging in Gujarat."

Regarding the second impugned news item captioned: "UK mission report may put Modi in dock" - "Riots victims families could move British courts to try Gujarat CM", the complainants have submitted that the author has deliberately tried to internationalize the role of Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister for allegedly engineering the Gujarat riots by using sensational remarks. The author has deliberately added international dimensions to the case and is thus guilty of spoiling India's friendly relations with other countries and tarnishing her fair image in the world.

The complainants have submitted that being responsible citizens of India they have filed this complaint in public interest and have requested the Council to inquire into the matter and to take action against the respondent newspaper for tarnishing the fair image of the country in general and Hindu community in particular which believes in the philosophy of the Sarv Dharm Sambhav, both within the country and outside.

Comments of the respondent The Times of India, Mumbai were invited on 13.6.2002. There was no response.

When the matters were called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on 28-29th April 2003, neither the complainants nor the respondent appeared before it. The complainants had, by a letter dated April 17, 2003 expressed their inability to appear before the Committee due to their old age. They had requested the Council to take appropriate action in the matter on the basis of the material already sent by them.

At the outset the Inquiry Committee noted the absence of the Times of India and observed that it expected better co-operation from leading newspapers. It expressed its displeasure over the callous attitude of the Times of India in neither filing the written statement in response to the Council's letter dated 13.6.2002 nor being represented before the Inquiry Committee to defend their case. The Committee then proceeded to consider the matter on its merits. The Committee carefully perused the articles. It was of the view that the impugned articles cannot be equated to news items. The author has, in the said articles, given his opinion on the situation and in doing so incidentally commented on incidents reported by various fora and also referred to the views expressed by many responsible people on the course of action followed by the governmental machinery. The Committee opined that the newspaper could not be faulted for giving space to the opinion of the author, who was, as a citizen, as much entitled to his opinion, as any other citizen. Hence, it felt that no further action is warranted in the matter. It recommended to the Council accordingly.

Foot Note: Ms. Sabina Inderjit, member did not participate in the deliberations on account of her association with the Times of India.

XXII-XXIV
Shri V.D. Mishra,                                                   (I)   The Editor,
Commissioner of Police,                 Vs.                         Tarun Bharat.
Aurangabad.                                                           (II) The Editor, Saamna.
                                                                               (III) The Editor,
                                                                                      Vishw amitra.

Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad filed three complaints dated 23.05.2002 alleging publication of exaggerated and provocative news items in local news papers of Aurangabad following the Godhra incident in Gujarat.

The complainant has submitted that subsequent to the tragic incident at Godhra in Gujarat on 27.02.2002, the local newspapers of Aurangabad started publishing exaggerated, biased, inciting and irritating news items, creating communal hatred thereby exciting the feelings of both the communities. The complainant alleged that the daily papers such as 'Tarun Bharat", "Saamna" & "Vishwamitra" had played a leading role in highlighting the incidents and flaring communal hatred between Hindus and Muslims by publishing highly provocative, baseless and exaggerated news. The English translations of the captions of the news items supplied by the complainant are as follows:

S.No.	Name of Daily News Paper	Date	Published News Headlines
1.	Tarun Bharat	07.03.2002	Stone pelting, arson at Bhigarin Nagar, Curfew imposed. (25 die in fresh violence in Gujarat)
2.	-do-	14.03.2002	Who won & who lost?
3.	-do-	12.04.2002	Hindus are real enemy of Hindu.
4.	-do-	12.04.2002	Hindus are dead & culprits are Hindus
5.	Saamna	11.03.2002	Gandhar to Godhra. Islamic world is involved in Terrorism.
6.	-do-	12.03.2002	Instigation came from the Mosque to burn Ramsevaks in Godhra.
7.	-do-	15.03.2002	Godhra fire incidence is Islamic Tradition.
8.	-do-	15.03.2002	Recognized thefts at Ayodhya.
9.	-do-	21.03.2002	Godhra incidence took place because Ramsevak kidnapped Muslim girl.
10.	-do-	09.04.2002	Sangh Branches increased in Gujarat after riot.
11.	-do-	17.04.2002	Hindustani Muslim not problems but disaster.
12.	-do-	17.04.2002	Hindus goodness is in the hands of polite Hindus.
13.	Vishwamitra	04.03.2002	Lots of Mosques Destroyed, Females are raped, Govt. supplying petroleum articles to goondas team.
14.	-do-	06.03.2002	Effects of Gujarat riots reached upto Muslim justice of High Court.
15.	-do-	07.03.2002	Hindus value is Rs. Two lakhs and Muslim value is only one lakh in Gujarat.
16.	-do-	09.03.2003	Violence in Gujarat started from the incidence of Sabarmati Express (The details investigation made by the Washington Post)
17.	-do-	10.03.2002	Killings of Musbms, Mr. Chandrababti Naidu disturbed, likely to withdraw Support to Vajpayee Government (Ayodhya is responsible for violence & blooding)
18.	-do-	11.03.2002	70 Crore Rupees damaged in only 12 days, will rich Gujarat becomes Beggar (Dangers reflections of Hindu terrorism & evil miracle).
19.	-do-	12.03.2002	Mr.Singhal, Togadiya & Ramchanrandas who are scare to Government & court are completely free. (Then why arrest of Mr. Kamran & Yunus Siddigi)
20.	-do-	13.03.2002	Caretaker of general people Aslam Bhure as given in tension to all others including central Govt. All are awaiting judgement of supreme court) (Emergency construction at judgement of Supreme court)
21.	-do-	14.03.2002	Supreme Court warns to Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Restricted not to interfere. Those who are taking political advantage of Hinduism are feared.
22.	-do-	16.03.2002	Ayodhya drama flops due to lack of effective dialogues, emotional scene & sweet music.
23.	-do-	03.04.2002	Collected Muslims addresses from Corporation, Telephone exchange & Election list (No relation between Godhra & Gujarat riots)
24.	-do-	05.04.2002	Godhra incidence; Received E-mail of important information of 'Those Karsevak.
25.	-do-	08.04.2002	Vajpayee visited Gujarat, cried but could not cross "Laxman Rekha" (Alert if tried to touch Mr. Modi)
26.	-do-	11.04.2002	Show the proof how your relative died in Gujarat riot otherwise help could not BE given. (Atrocities to Muslims in Gujarat from Modi)
27.	-do-	16.04.2002	"Vajpayee Sabse Bada Papi Hai, woh Girgit Ki Taraha rang badalta hai" (Ramsevak themselves started Gujarat Riots)

The complainant alleged that all the above-impugned news items were damaging and intended to create disharmony. The complainant requested the Council to warn the respondent newspapers for inflaming communal passions.

Comments of respondents Saamna, Tarun Bharat and Vishwamitra were invited urn 17.06.2002.

The Executive editor, Vishwamitra in his written statement dated 17.07.2002 while denying the allegation of the complainant, submitted that it is unjust and unfortunate to dub the newspapers communal. According to the respondent it is the duty of the newspapers to publish all the facts freely and fearlessly. While doing this, every precaution had been taken regarding its impartiality and sensitivity. The respondent has submitted that the newspapers held in high respect the sentiments of the people belonging to the other community. The news items questioned by the complainant hurt not a single person. The daily did not receive a single complaint, in this regard. The complainant as the Police Commissioner of Aurangabad had neither objected to any news nor intimated his resentment during this period, nor did he make any request to the newspapers against publishing the said news items. All the news items published between March 4th.April 16th were nothing different from what was shown on the various news channels, and published in national dailies and newsmagazines, averred the respondent.

The respondent further submitted that the newspaper never indulged in acts like inciting people and spreading communal hatred and it has played a very constructive role in Aurangabad. According to him the Police Commissioner himself had acknowledged and admired this fact several times in the past.

Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad in his counter comments dated 17.10.2002 has submitted that the respondent daily cannot claim innocence. According to him it should have restrained itself from publishing provocative news items. Denying the statements made by the respondent, the complainant reiterated that all the impugned news items of "Vishwamitra" were damaging.

The complainant has requested the Council to direct the, respondent to desist from publishing such provocative news endangering the democratic setup and secular concept of the country.

A copy of the counter comments was forwarded to the respondent "Vishwamitra" on 03.01.2003.

The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Ahmedabad on28-29th April 2003. Shri Abdul Kadeer, Assistant Editor represented the newspaper, Vishwamitra while there was no appearance on behalf of the other respondents i.e. Tarun Bharat and Saamna. Complainant was also not represented.

Shri Abdul Kadeer representative of Vishwamitra submitted that the complainant, the Commissioner of Police, never objected orally or in writing to the impugned news reports. He never intimated that due to publication of the reports, peace in the city was being disturbed. He justified the publication on the ground that those were based on the incidents, which took place in Gujarat, and that the reports were also based on the interviews taken and new broadcast on television and the paper could not be blamed for reproducing the statement of others. He stressed that no communal violence took place or peace was disturbed due to the impugned publications.

Shri Kadeer was advised by the Committee that while the prime objective of the press was certainly to inform, it had also to ensure that the reports were free from any slant or bias as also served to wean the people away from communal passion and enmity. It was also not necessary that the immediate repercussion of the allegedly inflammatory report should be visible in the law and order situation. The Press Council as a body enjoined to instil ethics had to examine the sum and substance of the effect of these reports. The representative was called upon to give an undertaking to desist from publishing such news reports in future. The representative of the Vishwamitra, verbally assured the Committee that the newspaper will not publish such reports in future, but did not give the undertaking in writing.

The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record. It noted that all the three newspapers had published a series of news reports, with provocative headlines and a tendency to inflame communal enmity between the two communities. They had thus violated Press Council's guidelines advising caution in reporting communal riots. It is worthwhile to reiterate the guideline here for the benefit of all:-

"News, views or comments relating to communal or religious disputes/clashes should be published after proper verification of facts and presented with due caution and restraint in a manner which is conducive to the creation of an atmosphere congenial to communal harmony, amity and peace. Sensational, provocative and alarming headlines are to be avoided. Acts of communal violence or vandalism should be reported in a manner as may not undermine the people's confidence in the law and order machinery of the State. Giving community-wise figures of the victims of communal riot, or writing about the incident in a style which is likely to inflame passions aggravate the tension, or accentuate the strained relations between the communities/religious groups concerned, or which has a potential to exacerbate the trouble, should be avoided".

The Committee hoped that in future at least the press will appreciate the power it wields upon the public Opinion and desist from making any remarks or carrying reports that kind be rather than douse the flames of communal passions. Insofar as the cases in hand are concerned, the Inquiry Committee recommends to the Council to 'warn' all the three newspapers for reporting in violation of the norms of ethical reporting.

On consideration of the records of the cases and reports of the Inquiry Committee and having discussed the matter in detail, the Council accepts the reasons, findings and recommendation of the Committee in the matters and decides accordingly.

Before parting with these cases, the Press Council expresses its deep concern about the future, and the role of media.

It must always be remembered that the carnage has given a terrible shock to India's fair secular name. It was a national shame. There is no need hi reiterate norms that media has to adhere to in such situation. However now there is a greater moral responsibility on the media to do their best to build up the national solidarity and to recement the communal harmony at all level remembering the noble role they had played during the pre independence days.