JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns letter dated 11.10.2001, of the Press Council of India Annexure P. 16, informing the petitioner that in view of the publication of the clarification by the respondent newspaper Dainik Sambad, no further action is warranted in the matter.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent newspaper has made a mockery of its clarification by reducing it and omitting essential portions. Petitioner’s original complaint against the respondent was found to be justified by the Press Council. The Enquiry Committee of the Council, recommended a warning to be given to the respondent newspaper for the infarction of journalistic ethics. Petitioner was directed to send a factual clarification to the respondent newspaper for publication. Respondent was required to publish it within a week of receipt, without omitting any portion. The editor was however given liberty to append his note that they stood by the original story, if so advised.
3. Writ petition raises an interesting question with regard to the right of an aggrieved person to insist upon the full text of the reply/clarification to be published vis-a-vis the right of the newspaper to edit the same and restrict its length, as long as the essential points are retained and no material portion is omitted.
4. The facts in brief as set out by the petitioner may be noted:-
(i) Petitioner claims that a defamatory news item in “Dainik Sambad” was published on 24.2.1999. Petition sent its letter of protest for publication to the newspaper. The same was not published. Respondent published another news item on 28.2.1999 “Irregularities to exist in VHAT activities-Shreelekha” purporting to publish the letter of protest. This was followed by further news items published on 5.3.1999 and 8-10th April, 1999, which was claimed to be defamatory by petitioner.
(ii) Petitioner sent another letter of protest to the newspaper dated 5.3.1999, which was not published. There was no response to a reminder/letter of protest sent by the petitioner on 14.3.1999. Finally, a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Press Council Act against the newspaper. The newspaper filed its written statement before the Press Council of India. Upon completion of the pleadings, the matter was heard by the Enquiry Committee.
(iii) The Enquiry Committee of Council after hearing both the parties concluded that the newspaper had not varified the facts at the pre publication stage. The respondent newspaper’s contention that the petitioner admitted the existence of irregularities in the letter of protest, was negatived. The Committee also reached the conclusion that the respondent, while publishing the clarification had cleverly selected certain sentences to suit its convenience and omitted the material portions. Committee held that this amounted to compounding the offence. Committee recommended to the Council to warn the respondent for the infarction of journalistic ethics pertaining to pre publication verification and of the right of reply. It directed the complainant/petitioner through her counsel to send a factual clarification to the respondent newspaper, to be published within a week of its receipt without omitting any portion. The editor, of respondent was at liberty to append a note that they stood by the original story, if so advised. The Press Council of India accepted the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee and order dated 28.8.2000 was passed by Chairman of the Press Council of India, recording the above decision.
(iv) The petitioner claims that it sent the clarification for publication through its advocate on 16.10.2000. The respondent newspaper vide its letter of 10.11.2000 protested against the length and content of the clarification given by the petitioner. Respondent claimed that the clarification did not relate to the News item. It was in the nature of a Biography and self laudatory statements. Respondent offered to publish the original letter of protest or any other clarification in brief confined to refutal of allegations in News Item. The petitioner in reply vide letter of 18.12.2000, claimed that clarification was not lengthy. Besides in view of defamatory news items, as published, petitioners were entitled to remove false impressions from the mind of members of Society. Petitioner was requested to suitably redraft the clarification and send to the respondent newspaper. Petitioner claims that it shortened the version of clarification from 9 pages to 7 pages and forwarded the same to the newspaper for publication through its advocates. The respondent/newspaper again writes to the Press Council vide its letter dated 1.2.2001, raising the same objections even for the shortened 7 page clarification. Petitioner demands that the clarification as sent vide its advocates letter of 18.12.2000 be published. The Press Council of India vide its letter of 16.2.2001, requested the newspaper to suitably edit publish the 7 page clarification of the petitioner without omitting any ‘factual inaccuracies’ and publish the relevant portions under intimation to the council as well as complainant. The respondent newspaper published the clarification as edited by it on 21.3.2001.
(v) Petitioner’s grievance is that its clarification has been published in an abbreviated form omitting essential portions thereof. Petitioner protests against the publication of the clarification, which, it is claimed, has been reduced by omitting essential portions and adding the respondent’s own contention.
(vi) The Press Council of Indian thereafter considered the matter and sent its letter of 11.10.2001, holding that in view of the clarification as published by respondent Dainik Sambad, no further action was required to be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Banerjee submitted that the respondent newspaper had published damaging the defamatory reports against the Doctor couple and their organization in separate issues of their newspaper on different dates. As against this, the clarification that was ultimately published was in one column in an inside page of newspaper dated 21.3.2001. Learned counsel submits that considering the length of defamatory news items, which appeared, the publication of the clarification as edited by the respondent was a mockery and a mere lip service. Mr. Gaurav Banerjee submits that vide decision dated 21.8.2000, Press Council of India, directed respondent to publish the clarification without omitting any portion thereof. The only right, being given to the Editor of respondents was to append a note, if so advised. The coverage given by the respondents to the defamatory news items pertaining to petitioner was far greater than the clarification published, which would hardly atone for the damage done to the reputation of the petitioner and Dr. Dilip Ray and Dr. Shreelekha.
6. Mr. Banerjee urged that Press Council after hearing parties had reached the conclusion that the news item had been published without prior verification and obtaining petitioners’ version. Press Council found the conduct of respondent in breach of journalistic ethics. Press Council being conscious of the conduct of the respondent had given a specific direction to publish the clarification “without any omissions”. He urges that petitioner is entitled to have his genuine grievance redressed. The plea of space constraint cannot be allowed to come in the way of redressing the petitioner’s genuine grievances. The Press Council of India despite having earlier given a direction to publish the clarification “without any omission” has condoned and approved of the publication of the abridged letter to the editor, which amounts to reviewing and revising its earlier decision without there being any ground for it. The petitioner also questions the authority of the Under Secretary (M) of the Press Council to give a direction to the newspaper editor to suitably edit the 7 page clarification without omitting any factual inaccuracies and publish the relevant portion.
7. Petitioner, in these circumstances prays that the respondent be asked to publish the clarification as sent by it.
8. Having noted the facts, correspondence exchanged and the respective contentions of the parties, let us consider whether the petitioner is entitled to assail the decision of the respondent Council dated 11.10.2001, holding that in view of the edited clarification published, no further action was required, thus applying a quietus to it.
The question which arises for consideration is whether a party aggrieved by the publication of news items complained of as defamatory, can insist or require that letter of protest or reply to be published should be detailed and lengthy, as given by it?
It would be relevant in this connection to refer to the norms of the journalistic ethics as published by the Press Council of India. The norm relating to right of reply is reproduced below:
“Right of reply
The newspaper should promptly and with due prominence, publish, free of cost, at the instance of the person affected or feeling aggrieved/or concerned by the impugned publication, a contradiction/reply/ clarification or rejoinder sent to the editor in the form of a letter or note. The editor has a discretion either to publish it, in full, or publish its abridged and edited version, particularly when it is inordinately long. But the remainder should be an effective reply to the allegations. However, the editor is not entitled to alter, distort, omit or refuse to publish important portions of the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder which effectively deal with the material allegations in the news item. If the editor doubts the truth or factual accuracy of the contradiction/reply/clarification or rejoinder, even the, it is his/her duty to publish it, with liberty to add separately at the end a brief editorial comment doubting its veracity, but only when this doubt is reasonably founded on unimpeachable documentary or other evidential material in his/her possession. The editor should not, in a vacalier fashion, without due application of mind, append such note, as : ‘We stand by our story’. It must be remembers that the liberty to append an editorial comment to a rejoinder or reply, is not an absolute right. It is a concession which has to be availed of sparingly with due discretion and caution in appropriate case.”
9. From the foregoing, it would be seen that the right of an Editor of the newspaper or magazine to edit the reply is well recognised. This is particularly so when the reply being filed is rather a long one. The rationale of the above norm appears to be that the substance and important parts of the reply ought to be retained. The newspaper or publication is required to publish the substance of the reply. It is required to publish substance of the contents of the reply, even if it doubts the truth or veracity thereof. The newspaper or publication is entitled to add its comments thereon. In other words, it cannot decline to publish the reply on the ground that it doubts the veracity or truth thereof. The editing to be done by the newspaper should not result in important portions of the reply being deleted or distorted. The effectiveness of the reply should not be diluted.
In the instant case, the Press Council has candidly admitted in its reply affidavit that when order dated 21.8.2000, directing the petitioner to publish the reply/clarification without any “Omission” was passed, it did not perceive that the reply of the petitioners could be so long.
10. It may be noted at this stage that the Press Council of India is a quasi-judicial body constituted under the Press Council Act, 1978. The object of the Council is to preserve the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve standard of the newspapers and news agencies in India. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Council to administer warning, admonition or censure to the newspapers/news agencies or to censure or disapprove the conduct of an editor or the concerned journalist, if the Council has reason to believe that the newspaper/news agency has acted in breach of journalistic ethics or the Editor/Journalist have committed any professional misconduct. Section 14(2) of the Act also enables the Council to require any newspaper to publish the correspondence or proceedings of any enquiry conducted by it or a decision taken requiring the publication to publish a reply.
Journalistic ethics are evolved to ensure fair play. These also provide a mechanism to an aggrieved person to ventilate his grievance against a newspaper or publication which publishes a defamatory news item/article without compelling the aggrieved person to seek legal redress from the court of law. The newspaper or the publication has a duty to objectively verify the facts and ascertain the version of the person, who is likely to be affected by the publication or against whom imputations, which are defamatory, are being published. In case, there has been a lapse in pre-verification of facts or the publication does not contain the view point or version aggrieved, Press Council directs the publication/newspaper to publish the reply/version of the aggrieved person. The above mechanism is available besides the legal remedy available to an aggrieved person of filing a suit for damages for defamation or a criminal compliant under Sections 499/500 IPC. The Press Council of India has evolved the norms for right of reply as set out in para 8 hereinbefore, based on number of its decisions and precedents. The norms, as noted, are based on the doctrine of fair play. The enforcement of right of reply received judicial sanction by the Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah .
11. Coming to the clarification/reply which the petitioner was insisting upon being published, the same appears at pages 96 to 103 of the paper book. A perusal of the same reveals that considerable portion i.e. the first three pages are devoted to the academic accomplishments and career development of Dr. Dilip Ray and Dr. Shreelekha Ray. The clarification dwells at length on their hard work and struggle and the service to the Society claimed to have been done by them. The role of Dr. Shreelekha and Dr. Dilip Ray in building of the voluntary health association of Tripura from a small organization with a small budget of Rs. 7000/- to a large organization having a budget of Rs. 54 lacs and properties worth Crores is described in detail. Dr. Shreelekha and Dr. Dilip Ray are described as crusaders. It would be seen that the above statements assuming them to be correct are in any case self laudatory. A newspaper cannot be expected or required to publish such self laudable statements regarding the complainant without the same having a direct bearing to the publication complained of. Secondly, the clarification accuses the respondents of pure yellow journalism. It describes the news items published as slanderous attack for purposes of blackmail. A newspaper or a publication cannot be compelled to publish defamatory imputation against itself in the garb of exercise of right to reply. In these circumstances, the Press Council was fully justified in authorising the Editor to suitably edit the 7 page clarification, “without omitting any factual inaccuracies and publish the relevant portion”. The letter dated 11.10.2001 was written by the Under Secretary under directions and it simply communicated the decision taken by the respondent Council. In the reply affidavit filed in the writ petition by the authorized person, the Press Council has reiterated and justified the decision taken on 11.10.2001. The plea that the decision is without the authority of Council does not hold good.
12. On perusal of the clarification as published, it is seen that substance and gist of the petitioners’ version has been duly published deleting the self laudable portions. The clarification denies the allegations of embezzlement. It describes the organisation and set up of the VHAT, it gives with reasonable details the description of the activities and projects carried out by VHAT, the clarification states the petitioners’ case that financial expenses and transactions are carried out as per rules, members of the Financial Committee regulate its affairs, assessments are also done by outside organizations. It categorically denies any embezzlement. From the foregoing, it would be seen that the substance of petitioners’ allegations has been published and essential concerns duly addressed.
13. In my view, petitioners cannot insist upon getting a clarification of the same length published as that of the news items. As long as the essential points of the petitioners’ reply are published with reasonable details, the petitioners cannot make a grievance out of it. What should be the length of a clarification? No strait-jacket formula an be laid. It would depend on the facts of each individual case. The petitioners have not been able to spell out any “factual inaccuracy” in the news items that had been mentioned in the clarification but had been omitted in the edited clarification published. No specific distortion has been pointed out. The clarification as published duly records the petitioners’ case of the allegation of embezzlement being wholly false and states that there are stringent financial control exercised, accounts are audited. The clarification mentions that leaving aside the husband and wife duo, it is not possible even for a cockroach to embezzle any money from VHAT.It is stated in the clarification that news item was published to defame the President and Hony. Secretary and it was a concocted story.
14. While it is true that the respondent had published the news item complained of without pre-verification of facts and had delayed the publication of letter of protest, the same cannot be used as a ground for insisting on publication of a self laudatory and lengthy letter of protest.
From the foregoing, I am of the view that the Press Council in the circumstances of this case has rightly approved of the clarification/reply as published. The Press Council of India has duly exercised its jurisdiction and dealt with the complaint. No ground is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner if so advised and admissible can avail of the regular civil and criminal remedies at law, for the alleged defamatory imputations.
The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.