The Press Council vs the INS

Exchanges between the PCI and the INS keep alive a debate on the impact of ownership structures and employment patterns on the freedom of the press.

SUDHA MAHALINGAM
in New Delhi

THE recent engagement between the Indian Newspaper Society (INS), the forum of newspaper proprietors and publishers, and the Press Council of India (PCI) is unprecedented in the history of both the institutions. It was sparked off by the PCI's censure of The Times of India in August this year following a complaint against the newspaper.

Justice P.B. Sawant, Chairman of the PCI, stirred a hornet's nest when he made certain comments in another context, identifying private ownership of newspapers as one of the factors impeding press freedom and advocating a system of cooperative ownership as an alternative ownership structure, as a possible way out. His criticism of contractual employment in the industry as another factor affecting press freedom also did not endear him to the INS, especially because contractual employment is widely prevalent in the industry today. Since then heated exchanges have ensued between the two institutions, keeping alive the debate on the impact of ownership structures and employment patterns on the freedom of the press.

Mammen Mathew, president of the Indian Newspaper Society.

THE controversy erupted when the INS took umbrage at Justice Sawant's remarks. Besides criticising him for the PCI's censure of The Times of India, it accused him of holding "hostile" and "biased" views.

The PCI, annoyed at the fact that its Chairman was singled out for criticism though the censure was made by the entire Council, wanted the INS to withdraw the remarks. It met on October 5 to discuss a letter written by Mammen Mathew, the current president of the INS and the Editor of Malayala Manorama. In his letter dated September 19, Mathew insisted that the earlier resolution passed by the INS at Aurangabad on August 11, which condemned the PCI, did in fact reflect the concerns of all its members.

However, Mammen Mathew's statement ran counter to the assertions made by C.R. Irani, Editor-in-Chief of The Statesman. Irani alleged that the issue had not been on the agenda for discussion at Aurangabad that day. Therefore, he said, the resolution which was said to have been passed by the INS could not be said to reflect the views of all its members.

The statement issued by the PCI on October 6 described the allegations of bias against its Chairman as "unfortunate, unwarranted and completely unjustified." The statement said: "Our Constitution does not lay store by only one structure of ownership of business, including the media business. It permits cooperative as it does individual proprietorships, partnership firms, trusts, companies and corporations. To consider a person biased against private owners because he advocates also the cooperative structure of ownership in the press is to act against the Constitution of the land and also against the constitution of the INS itself and to betray an outright partisan attitude."

It goes on to say: "The view of the Chairman that the contract system of employment as it exists today tends to compromise the independence of the journalists and therefore the freedom of the press is a plausible and reasonable view and is his personal view and he is entitled to express it. He is not alone in holding and expressing the said view. By expressing the said view he does not become biased against the private owners of the newspapers. To call him biased on that account is to act in a partisan manner."

Condemning the attempt to target the PCI Chairman for criticism, the Council described the INS' action as "a calculated attempt to denigrate the institution of the Press Council."

The INS was quick to respond. It said: "The Press Council of India should confine themselves to their designated role prescribed under the relevant statutes and regulations. In this context, it is not appropriate for the Press Council to delve into the issue of the contract system for journalists, which, under the law of the land, is a matter to be settled between the employers and the employees."

It went on to say, "...The INS also expressed its concern over the treatment meted out by authorities to one of the leading publishers and for the unwarranted censure by the Press Council of a premier newspaper for using its columns to speak up for violation of human rights by certain authorities. While the INS holds the Press Council and the Office of its Chairman in high esteem, it cannot remain a mute witness to any onslaught on the values it is committed to uphold."

On October 23, the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI) issued a statement supporting the INS' stand and advising the PCI to refrain from "interfering in matters that should be determined by the market and the law of the land."

Justice Sawant promptly wrote back to Johann P. Fritz, Director of the IPI, on October 28, terming his comments as "unfortunate" and based on one-sided inputs. Sawant also said: "We have not reached a stage where we have to learn the law of the land and the mandate of the Press Council Act from others." He defended his remarks about cooperative ownership, saying that he advocated it in addition to private ownership and pointed out that both the INS and the PCI had a member who had successfully run for 40 years a newspaper owned by cooperative. He also pointed out that private ownership eventually led to monopolies and cited the example of the United States, where 75 per cent of the press is owned by four families. He also pointed out the situation in the international arena where three individuals control significant percentage of conventional news sources. "This is detrimental to the free flow of information and therefore democracy all over the world. We believe that your institution is also interested in preserving and promoting democracy and not in the media-manipulated regimes. There is a good deal of scope for a few individuals who control such enormous and yet unaccountable media power to abuse it," Sawant's letter said.

On the issue of contractual employment, the PCI Chairman points out: "There is no denying the fact that under the hire and fire clause which is inserted in such contracts, it does tend to compromise the independence of journalists and therefore the freedom of the press... It is a certainly reasonable and probable view. There may be an equally reasonable view on the other side. But surely, both are entitled to express their views." Sawant said that the PCI had been approached by two major bodies representing the country's working journalists regarding the contractual system which was affecting the independence of the journalists in reporting in a free and fair manner. He said that while the PCI would not take cognisance of complaints regarding individual cases of removal from service, it was the duty of the Council to safeguard the freedom of the press. In this context, Sawant also referred to complaints of proprietorial pressure from journalists of big newspapers.

Sawant's letter to the IPI also quotes from Section 13 of the Press Council Act in order to make the point that it was within its competence to entertain and deliberate upon matters relating to ownership of newspapers and terms of employment inasmuch as they impacted on the freedom of the press.

The PCI Chairman took strong objection to a report submitted by Kantha Kumar, the INS delegate to the Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) in London, accusing the PCI of overstepping its jurisdiction. In a strongly worded letter to Mark Robinson, Executive Director of the CPU, which is an organisation that predominantly represents the interests of newspaper proprietors from the countries of the Commonwealth, Sawant reiterated all the points he had made in his letter to the IPI, in an attempt to "set the record straight".

Sawant told Frontline that a perception was gaining ground that the PCI's composition was weighted in favour of journalists. He pointed out that the composition of the PCI was determined by the Act and that the nominations came from the respective categories represented in the PCI.

At present the PCI has 29 members, including the Chairman. The Council is divided into two committees which conduct its business. A few days ago the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by one of the PCI's members challenging the validity of the rulings of the PCI, on the grounds that they were based on deliberations by committees and therefore did not reflect the verdict of the entire Council. Sawant told Frontline that the Press Council Act permitted the PCI to frame its rules of business and that the committee system had been in operation ever since its inception. Besides, he pointed out, any decision taken by the committee was delivered as the ruling of the PCI only after it was approved by the entire Council.

Sawant also defended his support for the cooperative form of ownership, citing the example of at least seven major publications, including Le Monde of France and Asahi Shimbun of Japan, which are cooperatively owned. However, he told Frontline that while cooperative ownership may shield newspapers from proprietorial pressures, the extent of freedom enjoyed by the press would depend upon the integrity and independence of individual editors and the journalists themselves.

N. SRINIVASAN
Justice P. B. Sawant, Chairman of the Press Council of India.

THE INS reacted sharply to Sawant's suggestion that the PCI should be armed with punitive powers. In a statement issued on November 12, Mammen Mathew said: "The Press Council is really an anachronism in this day and age and at a time when the state's role is sought to be reduced in regulating the media, the monitoring of press is best left to those who are in the business of running newspapers. To think of arming a regulatory body like the Press Council of India with punitive powers to punish newspapers would be counter-productive to the fostering of free and independent press."

Mathew described as "completely inaccurate and misleading" Sawant's reported statement that the INS was "denigrating its own members belonging to the cooperative sector."

He also defended the practice of hiring journalists on contract and said that the PCI could not interfere in what was a "matter to be dealt with directly by the employers and the employees." Mammen Mathew further said that the Council did not have any powers to go into matters relating to wages of journalists since such matters were specifically dealt with by the Working Journalists Act, 1958.

AT present the PCI has no power to enforce its rulings. It can hear and deliberate upon complaints against owners or editors and censure them, but cannot force the censured paper even to publish the censure. Sawant said that if any publication failed to publish its censure, the PCI should be allowed to levy a one-time penalty. The Times of India, which was censured by the PCI for using its columns to campaign against the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.), the agency investigating alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act by Ashok Jain, did not publish the censure. None of the other publications of the group published it either. The E.D. has petitioned the Delhi High Court praying for an order directing The Times of India and its sister publications to publish the PCI's censure prominently.

Ajit Bhattacharjea, Director of the Press Institute of India and a well-known commentator on issues relating to the press, told Frontline that the PCI was well within its powers to question ownership structures and the issue of contractual employment. He believes that the issues thrown up by the current controversy, namely, ownership patterns in the newspaper industry and terms of employment, should be subjected to informed public debate. "However, the reference to market forces made by the IPI is the single most unfortunate statement in this controversy," he said. Bhattacharjea said that while the censure of The Times of India by the PCI was well-deserved, the message could have been delivered in a more sober and restrained fashion. He agrees that the PCI should be armed with some recourse to make errant publications publish its censure.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar