People's Democracy

IN an atmosphere of jingoism, whipped-up hatred against communities and general intolerance, with authorities armed with POTO, worst things may happen. Even without POTO, this did happen.

Listen to the report of the Editors Guild of India dated November 23. It happened in Faridabad, an hour’s drive from Delhi. The person involved is Satish Kumar, an editor who specialises in labour problems.

The fact-finding committee comprising veteran journalists Ajit Bhattacharjee, G S Bhargava (media anaylist) and Om Thanvi (Jansatta) says that "from the start the arrest showed signs of misuse of authority." The FIR was registered at the unusual hour at 3.15 a m and he was picked up from his residence four hours later. "The FIR itself is vague," says the report.

The evidence available to the committee clearly points to flagrant misuse of executive authority to arrest an editor and silence a local newspaper which had criticised administrative officials by name, especially the local superintendent of police. If allegations are false, the law provides legal procedures for redressal which were not attempted. In any case, such misuse of authority to silence the press cannot be condoned. In addition, it states that stopping publication of a paper, as in the present instance, amounts to inhibiting journalists from doing their duty to report valid cases of corruption and misuse of authority.

At the same time, the distinction between legitimate exposure of corruption and unsubstantiated personal allegations must be maintained by the media to retain its credibility. In this case, we feel it necessary to record our concern with the provocative language and tone of some of the allegations published in the paper without stated source or substantiation.

Inquiries by the Guild team reveal further inconsistencies. The FIR had been registered in August 2001 though the offence was said to have occurred in March 2000. Neither the HUDA administrator Vijendra Kumar nor the estate officer M S Yadav was posted in Faridabad at the time. When asked why the case was filed, they said it was in response to a complaint "from outside." Ms G Anupama, who was administrator in March 2000 and is now posted in Chandigarh, said no irregularity had come to her notice.

Further, the committee was informed that according to Haryana government’s instructions, advertisements were to be issued only by the director of public relations in Chandigarh. No explanation was available as to how advertisements had been issued in Faridabad. No details were provided to support the charge of inflated circulation figure which, in any case, comes under the exclusive purview of the Registrar of Newspapers of India.

Despite these inconsistencies, Satish Kumar was denied bail by the duty magistrate and remanded to police custody. His appeal to the sessions court was also rejected. The date for hearing his bail application in the Punjab and Haryana High Court was set for three months later, which would have extended his pre-trial detention to nearly five months. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court that directed the High Court to dispose of it within a week. On October 8, 2001, he was released on bail after seven weeks in jail.

Meanwhile, the Faridabad police took steps to prevent publication of the Mazdoor Morcha. The printer of the paper discontinued printing and no other printer in Faridabad was willing to print it. "We are told that efforts to print it in Delhi have also been blocked." A criminal suit has been filed against Satish Kumar by name, on a charge of using a false print line. At the same time, the district magistrate has issued a notice for cancellation of the paper’s registration. When these formalities are completed, Mazdoor Morcha may be finally silenced.

The committee examined copies of Mazdoor Morcha that had headlined such allegations. They were suggestive and unsubstantiated. We felt that rather than curbing corruption, they damaged the credibility of the press. However, if false, the correct procedure for dealing with them was to sue the offender for defamation. Misuse of police powers to silence the editor or paper suggested that there could be an element of truth in the allegations.

We found that journalists in Faridabad were reluctant to report on such events. We were informed that even editors of Delhi newspapers were unwilling to publish news critical of Ranbir Sharma. One reason for his influence, we were told, was that he is the son-in-law of the union minister of state for home affairs, I D Swami.

As parliament got set to debate POTO came the news of the arrest of the owner of First Global which had a small share in Tehelka. Some of their properties were attached from time to time since the Tehelka exposure. Not only this, screws have been tightened on Tehelka for quite some time. Cases against First Global are said to be a record of sorts. Now First Global is the apparent target while the real target is Tehelka.