Introduction: A complaint against two newspapers raised serious questions on public morality, the conduct of the Press and the efficacy of the Press Council of India.
A recent order of the Press Council of India has raised serious questions on the efficacy of the council and the functioning of two of the country’s largest newspapers. Like most orders of the Council, this one too has been largely ignored. But it raises issues and finds fault in a manner that is at once unprecedented and provocative.
The complainant was Dr Amita Ahuja, Director (Public Relations & Placement) of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. The two newspapers whose conduct she thought objectionable were the Times of India and the Hindustan Times. Dr Ahuja charged the newspapers with publishing obscene photographs in their supplements “Delhi Times” and “HT City” respectively.
She alleged that “Delhi Times” takes one on “a virtual sojourn to invade a woman’s privacy and explore her vital statistics day after day”. She further alleged that “HT City” was “trying hard to give Delhi Times a tough competition by meaningless harping on indecent sensual photographs of female fashion models, film heroines and teenage girls, fully banking on Hollywood and Bollywood nudity”.
Dr Ahuja further alleged that these supplements included topics such as “late night discos, free mixing of sexes, teenage girls in skimpiest dresses, what is sexy/hep, tips on revealing navels, midriffs, hot pants, seductive micro minis, body hugging bustiers...”
Her grievance was that such publication converted schools and colleges into “fashion grounds rather than temples of learning”, sent wrong signals to youth and cast a dangerous spell on children and teenagers. She asked the Council to adjudicate on whether such publication would enable people to have respect for women. She further asked the Council to examine if the newspapers were flouting the Indecent Representation of Women (prohibition) Act and laws on obscenity. There can be no question that the complaint raised serious questions on public morality and the conduct of the Press. More important was the question raised by implication — can and is the Press Council of India, a body formed under an act of Parliament, equipped to adjudicate on these questions, and in a manner that could effect a material change?
The Council issued show-cause notices to the editors of the two newspapers. The Hindustan Times chose to ignore the notice. The Times of India did not. Instead, it put up a spirited defence in a written statement and claimed, inter alia:
— That the photographs published were in no way obscene, vulgar or indecent and that because the private parts of the women were properly covered, none of them could fall within the definition of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (7) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
— That the world was moving fast and radical changes were taking place in the tastes and attitudes of people, and that the newspaper had to keep pace with these changes.
— That the newspaper took serious objection to the averments made by Dr Ahuja in her complaint and would proceed with civil and criminal action for defamation against her unless she withdrew her complaint and gave an unconditional apology in writing to the Times of India group.
The Inquiry Committee of the Council heard the matter in July 2001. The complainant appeared in person. Neither newspaper did.
After hearing the matter, the Committee held that most of the photographs complained about were “obscene, derogatory of womanhood and patently in bad taste”. It held further that such photographs “even embarrass the grown-ups while polluting the minds of the youth”. But this was not all. Not by a long shot.
The Committee held “besides being a clear violence against womanhood and an unmitigated assault on women’s dignity, it (the publications) provided enough fuelling material for crime against women.”
It went on to say that when society is “exposed to such lewd and salacious views, the natural consequence is all sorts of criminal assaults including rape and murder, on female sex even of tender age.”
Rejecting the contention of the Times of India that the newspaper could not “lag behind” when the rest of the world was going ahead, the Committee said “it is an irony when both the Times of India and the Hindustan Times managements are headed by women, people should be exposed to the fare in question.”
The Committee expressed strong displeasure over the “unethical and illegal publication of the photographs and recommended to the Council to censure the respondent newspapers”. It also voiced concern over the attempt by the Times of India “to threaten the complainant”, describing it as an attempt to muzzle dissent. It further asked the National Commission and the State Commissions of women to take appropriate steps to curb such tendencies of the media.
Last month, the Council accepted the reasons, findings and reasons of the Inquiry Committee in full. In short, the two newspapers were censured.
This is strong stuff, indeed. But there has been no reaction, not even from the otherwise irrepressible and ecstatically puritanical Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Mrs Sushma Swaraj, whose charge extends to the activities of the Council. Instead there is an embarrassed silence, almost as if a grown up had soiled himself in company.
Is that what the Press Council did when it relieved itself of what must arguably be the strongest censure ever of mass-circulated newspapers? It did, after all, do more than label the two newspapers as pornographers; it went as far to find a link between publication and the incidence of crime against women and young girls. Prima facie, the Council’s findings provide ground for prosecution of the two newspapers. Incitement to crime, publication of pornography and disregard of laws on public morality add up to a “tehalka” of gargantuan proportions. Why then this hushed silence? Is the Press Council of India not being taken seriously enough? And if it is not, who is to blame? Only the errant Press? Or the Council, too?
Several circumstances are necessary for a Press Council to be treated with respect. It must contain individuals of the highest integrity, persons known for setting and upholding standards. They must be capable of dispassionate assessment of standards in the Press. They must be fair, and seen to be fair. Such must be the weight of their opinion that they must be heard, regardless of whom their words hurt.
While the Press Council has been chaired by a succession of distinguished jurists, some of its other members are the contribution of an unwieldy and less than confidence-inspiring quota system that seeks to make representation broad-based, but sacrifices quality at the altar of convenience.
Some of the procedures the Council follows are quixotic, to say the least, and include such aberrations as issue of notice without consideration of facts — as is often done when complainants seek from the Council a right to reply without having claimed it first from the newspapers they are aggrieved by. It is thus that the Council finds itself in the position of often being ignored by newspapers. While it retains the right to require a newspaper to publish in a manner it deems fit any particulars relating to an inquiry, this is seldom done. Curiously, from the record it appears the Council did not do so even in the case of the Times of India and the Hindustan Times.
While there are lessons for the Press to learn from Dr Ahuja’s case, there are equally lessons for the Council to learn from the absence of a reaction to its strongly worded order.
What constitutes pornography may well remain a matter of opinion; the sanctity of a quasi-judicial pronouncement must never be open to such subjective interpretation as allows for it to be ignored.
(The author is Managing Editor,
The Statesman.)