by
Shobha
Aggarwal
Decades of our work at ABVA, AIDS
Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (AIDS Anti-Discrimination Movement of India) was
sought to be subverted and our reputation tarnished through an article
published in The Hindu. We decided to
fight back and filed a complaint at the Press Council of India (PCI). The decision
on our complaint was passed on 29.05.2019 by the PCI whose present Chairman is Justice
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.
The
decision in our complaint is being reproduced verbatim:
“This
complaint dated 25.9.2018 has been filed by Ms Shobha Agarwal, Member, AIDS
Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA), New Delhi against ‘The Hindu’ for allegedly
publishing a factually incorrect and defamatory article against ABVA in its
Sunday Magazine, Delhi Edition, issue dated July 15, 2018 captioned “It’s been a long, long time” by Vidya
Krishnan, which the complainant alleges have subverted the collective work of
the organization.
The
alleged impugned news item gives an overview of the development of LGBTQ rights
movement in India over the last 25 years and how it gained its momentum. The
article under its sub-heading ‘Brave and
Prescient’ states that Mr Siddarth Gautam, an LGBTQ right activist, played
the pivotal role in filing of the PIL challenging the Constitutional validity
of Section 377, IPC for LGBTQ rights for the first time in India and somehow
gave all credits to Mr Gautam for giving momentum to the LGBTQ rights movement
in India by calling him the first champion of gay rights in India
and a co-founder of ABVA organisation. The article also published that Mr
Gautam authored a ground breaking pamphlet titled ‘less than gay’ - a citizens
report on the discrimination faced by the community in India. Further, the
news article states that after the death of Mr Siddarth Gautam, which happened
after few months of publication of the report, ABVA failed to follow through
the PIL petition and it got dismissed in 2001.
The
complainant alleges that the facts presented in the article are inaccurate and
subverts the collective work of ABVA. The petition challenging the
Constitutional validity of Section 377, IPC was filed by ABVA titled - AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan Vs. Union of
India & Others through its Member Ms. Shobha Agarwal, Advocate, after
the death of Mr Siddarth Gautam in 1992 and the petition was filed in 1994.
Also, Siddarth Gautam's contribution to Gay Rights was only on account of him
being one of the co-authors of the Report 'less than gay'. Therefore, Mr
Gautam's contribution to the report Less
Than Gay was not different from any other co-author of the Report. The
Report being called as a pamphlet is again inaccurate as it is a 93 pages
Report which cannot be termed as a pamphlet. The complainant further submitted
that, the first protest on the issue of gay rights in India was organized by
ABVA on August 1992 which the author/reporter of the article has referred to as
ineffective and is reflected in the quote 'nothing
came of it'. It undermines the work of ABVA and the day 11th
August 1992 is still cherished by the LGBTQI groups in India.
The
complainant states that the respondent newspaper has published an article that
is factually inadequate and ABVA was never contacted before to verify the facts
presented in the report. It also alleges that the reporter of the article Ms.
Krishna was biased, prejudiced and uninformed about the correct facts of the
LGBTQ rights movement in India and her conduct was in complete violation of
journalistic ethics. The complainant submitted that a letter dated 10th
September 2018 was sent to the Editor of The
Hindu and a phone call was also made to the author/reporter of the alleged
impugned article to which Ms. Krishnan has apologised but the newspaper has not
published the clarification as yet. The complainant appeals that an independent
inquiry be held in the matter and the guilty newspaper and journalist may be
punished and The Hindu be directed to publish a rejoinder in full and with
prominence in the matter.
Written Statement
A
Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2018 has
been issued to the
respondent. The respondent vide written statement dated December 26,
2018 submits that Ms. Krishnan the
author/reporter of the impugned news item/article has ceased to be in the employees list by the
Hindu as on October 5, 2018 and she was also not authorised to deal with such a
complaint on her own. And soon after the receiving of the copy of the complaint
which The Hindu found to be legitimate, action has been initiated in the matter
and a clarification/ corrections as desired by the complainant has already been
published by The Hindu and is up on its website acknowledging the crucial role
ABVA played in the publication of the report Less than Gay. Other desired
amendments to the article were also made. The editor of The Hindu also informed the same to the complainant. Therefore, the
respondent newspaper has requested for the dismissal of the complaint.
A
copy of the written statement received from the respondent was forwarded to the
complainant on 31.12.2018.
Counter comments of the Complainant
In
response to reply received from the respondent newspaper, the complainant, vide
letter dated 10.01.2019, has filed its written statement stating that the
written statement of the respondent is silent on many crucial issues and
obfuscates the true position. The complainant states that irrespective of
receiving letter asking for correction sent to the Readers' Editor of The
Hindu, by the complainant, the respondent did not take any action until it
received the show-cause notice of Press Council of India and after which the
editor of The Hindu made a call to pressurise her to withdraw the complaint by
saying that an online corrected version will be published. She further stated
that even the corrected version does not do any justice and she feels that she has
been harassed by the editor to withdraw the complaint. No apology has been
published by The Hindu for the delay and damage it has done to the
organisation’s name. The complainant
further stated that the inaccurate report was published in both online and
print version so the corrected version with an apology must be published in the
same. Therefore, the complainant has requested the Council to take necessary
action in the matter.
A copy
of the counter
comments was forwarded
to the respondent
on 16.1.2019 for information.
Report of the Inquiry Committee
The
matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 13.2.2019 at New
Delhi. Ms. Shobha Aggarwal, complainant, along with Dr. P.S. Sahni, Member
ABVA, appeared in person. S. Ramanujam, Regional Manager, The Hindu represented
the respondent Editor.
The
Inquiry Committee has heard Ms. Shobha Agarwal, the complainant and Mr. S.
Ramanujam for the respondent. It is the allegation of the complainant that the
petition challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 377, IPC was filed
by ABVA through its member, Ms. Shobha Agarwal, Advocate. It has been pointed
out that Mr. Siddarth Gautam died in the year 1992 and the petition was filed
in the year 1994 and therefore, the impugned story stating that Mr. Gautam
filed the PIL, is wrong. The complainant's grievance further is that, a report
which consists of 93 pages has been described as pamphlet and further it is not
the report by Mr. Gautam and he was only one of the co-authors amongst seven
authors who contributed to the report. The complainant has termed the story by
the reporter, Ms. Krishnan as biased, prejudiced and uninformed. It has been
emphasised by the complainant that the author of the article, Ms. Krishnan has
telephonically apologised but the newspaper has not published the clarification
as yet.
Written
statement has been filed by the respondent, inter
alia, stating that soon after the receiving of the complaint, the
respondent found the same to be legitimate. Action has been initiated and a
clarification/ correction as desired by the complainant has been published by
"the Hindu" and is up on its website acknowledging the crucial role
that the ABVA played in the publication of the report and other desired
amendment to the article was made. When the matter was heard on 13th
February 2019, the only grievance that the complainant made was that, the
corrections which have been made in the online edition be published in the
print edition of the respondent newspaper with an expression of regret.
Mr.
S. Ramanujam, who represented "the Hindu" on the said day pleaded for
adjournment of the case so as to seek instructions from the editor of the
newspaper. The Inquiry Committee acceded to the plea of the respondent and
accordingly adjourned the case to 14th February 2019. When the
matter was taken up on 14th February 2019, Mr. Ramanujam produced
before the Inquiry Committee the written submission signed by the editor of the
newspaper. In paragraph 9 of the said written submission, it has been stated as
follows:
“With due respect, Sir, I feel the
demand for an apology or a rejoinder is unjustified and I am not inclined to
accept this, given the circumstances. However, I do apologise for the PCI's
show cause notice having gotten misplaced, which led to the delay in submitting
a reply to us (dated December 26, 2018)”
The
Inquiry Committee has bestowed its consideration to the rival submission and is
of the opinion that refusal to publish the correction in the print edition of
the newspaper shows nothing but an act of arrogance of the Editor of the
newspaper. It is an admitted position that the impugned news story was
published in the print edition of the respondent "The Hindu". When
the respondent has chosen to make corrections in the online edition, the
Inquiry Committee does not find any justification not to do so in the print
edition when the errors and omissions are one and the same. Clause 13 of Norms
of Journalistic Conduct reads as follows:
“When
any factual error or mistake is detected or confirmed, the newspaper should
suo-motu publish the correction promptly with due prominence and with apology
or expression of regrets in a case of serious lapse.”
The
Norms of Journalistic Conduct provides for correction promptly with apology or
expression of regret suo-motu.
What
to talk about suo-motu, newspaper has refused to publish it even when it was
brought to its notice.
All
those, who write, are bound to make mistakes and for that purpose one keeps
erasers but erasers are kept by those who are willing to correct their
mistakes. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the editor of "The
Hindu" has forgotten this basic principle and without any justification is
unwilling to publish the correction in the print edition of the newspaper.
Those who say sorry, when they are wrong are honest, those who say sorry when
in doubt are wise. In the opinion of the Inquiry Committee, the respondent
editor is neither honest nor wise.
Accordingly,
the Inquiry Committee has no option than to Censure the respondent newspaper. A
copy of this order be forwarded to the Director General, DAVP, District
Magistrate, Chennai, Director, Information & Public Relations Department,
Chennai for information & appropriate action.
Held
The
Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry
Committee accepts reasons, findings and adopts the report of the Committee and
decides to Censure the respondent
newspaper with the above direction.”
Binu Mathew, editor, Countercurrents.org has
constantly been asking readers: Are you fed up with the mainstream media? Need
an alternative insight? The answer to both questions is always a yes!
Post Script: Mr. Mukund Padmanabhan was the editor of The Hindu during the
relevant period.
