Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh,
Former Prime Minister
New Delhi.
Versus
The Editor,
The Hindustan Times”
Lucknow (U.P.)
Complaint
Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Former Prime Minister of India filed this complaint dated 3.9.2002 against “The Hindustan Times”, Lucknow Edition for alleging factually incorrect and defamatory news item under the caption “High & Mighty Defaulters” in its issue dated 9.4.2002.
The news report retraced the power crisis in U.P. non-recovery of the dues from certain persons.
It inter-alia stated that electricity bill amounting to Rs. 83,000/- for electricity bills relating to Shri V.P. Singh’s residence at 7, Raj Bhawan Colony, Lucknow remain unpaid by him. The respondent also published his photograph as the first defaulter among the 8 photographs of various dignitaries. The Star T.V. also broadcast the same news.
Shri V.P. Singh alleged that the impugned publication was factually incorrect and severely affected his reputation. The complainant submitted that the Government had built a separate building for security personnel posted in the campus of his residence, 7, Raj Bhawan Colony, Lucknow and had installed a separate electricity meter in this building in the name of Estate Officer, U.P. Government for security lights etc. The Estate Officer, U.P. was responsible for paying the electricity bills of this meter. It was the outstanding dues of this meter, amounting to about Rs.86, 000/- that was in arrears. According to the complainant the Estate Officer, U.P. Government was the real defaulter not he, yet he was being pilloried for the same.
The complainant furnished a copy of the arrears demand of the U.P. Power Corporation addressed to the Estate Officer, U.P. Government demanding Rs.86,408/-. This notice clearly stated that the meter to which the arrears related was in the name of the Estate Officer, U.P. Shri Singh requested the Council to take appropriate action to redress his grievance.
Hon’ble Chairman, Press Council of India waived the requirement of Regulation 3(1) (c) of the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979 regarding drawing the attention of the erring newspaper. He also condoned the delay in filing of the complaint as per proviso to Regulation 3(1) (f) of the aforesaid Regulations.
Written Statement:
Show cause notice was issued to the respondent Editor, The Hindustan Times, Lucknow on 23.9.2002. The General Manager (Company Affairs) & Company Secretary, The Hindustan Times in this written statement dated November 14, 2002 received on 14.1.2003submitted that they had published a clarification in the issue of the Hindustan Times, Lucknow October 17, 2002 under the caption “No power dues pending against me: V.P. Singh”. He further submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the article in question was based on Government records, the management has taken care that the complainant’s side of story was published with utmost promptitude. The respondent requested to dismiss the case.
A copy of the respondent’s written statement was forwarded to the complainant on 15.1.2003.
Appearance before the Committee
The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 15.11.2002. There was no appearance from either side. However, a communication had been received from the complainant requesting for adjournment on medical grounds, which was acceded to by the Chairman under intimation to the respondent paper. The matter was again listed for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 23.1.2003. The complainant, Shri V.P. Singh, appeared in person while S/Shri D.N. Ray, Advocate and Naseer Kabir, Legal Officer represented the respondent newspaper, The Hindustan Times.
Submissions before the Committee
At they very outset, the complainant arguing in person stated that though his statement had been published it was not published as an acceptance of the original error or withdrawal of the incorrect statement. Further, the impugned report was damaging on three counts i.e. its heading, contents and the unnecessary publication of the photograph. The report was captioned ‘High and Mighty Defaulters’; his photograph was published as the first photograph among the alleged defaulters. The second para of the impugned report again personally charged him by saying that “ the former rulers of U.P. are defaulters and hence a party to peoples’ woes”. This was in addition to the earlier impugned statement. All the above clearly identified him personally as the defaulter and even in the written statement the paper continues to state that “notwithstanding the fact that which question was based on government record” the complainant version had been published. The fact in contrast as could be established from government records, was that the LESA had not issued any notice to him as defaulter for the simple reason that the meter in default of payment was installed in a separate building meant for the use of security personnel of SPG, and it was in the name of Estate Officer. No dues were pending so far as his personal bills were concerned. The complainant argued that thus the mere publication of his version was not sufficient and the newspaper should have retracted its own report and apologised to undo the damage caused to his reputation as a public person.
Shri D.N. Ray, learned counsel for the Hindustan Times contended that the impugned inference was to be naturally drawn if a building is primarily occupied by a prominent person. He also added that the impugned statement identified the house number as a defaulter. However when his attention was drawn by the Committee to the default notice issued in the name of the Estate Officer and to the importance of pre-publication verification, he tendered apologies on behalf of the management and assured that the newspaper shall publish the clarification as well as apology.
Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee
The Inquiry Committee considered the material on record and the oral submissions advanced before it by the parties. It was satisfied that personal allegations had been levelled against the complainant through the headlines, contents and photograph in the impugned which could have been corrected with a little effort at pre-publication verification as the default notice was clearly in the name of the Estate Officer. It was satisfied that, the default in outstanding arrear was not directly traceable to the complainant. In view of the facts of the case, the Committee directed The Hindustan Times to publish another clarification on the front page at the earliest and as prominently as possible giving the reference to the impugned news item. It may be worded as given below with modification as deemed fit by the editor. “We tender apology on behalf of the the Hindustan Times for publishing a report in Lucknow edition under the caption “High and Mighty Defaulters” in its issue dated 9.4.2002 and hereby clarify that the government records do not show that any billed amount was outstanding for payment against Shri V.P. Singh, The bill in default was in the name of Estate Officer towards the electricity consumption by security personnel posted with Shri V.P. Singh and living in a separate building constructed in the premises Shri V.P. Singh had nothing whatsoever to do with the payment of the said bill.”
Before parting with these directions the Committee put on record the statement of Shri V.P. Singh that he bore no ill will against the Hindustan Times and that he only wanted his clarification to be published and he holds the media particularly Hindustan Times in high esteem and hopes for an enduring relationship in future.
Decision of the Council
The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and reports of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.