Author: Ravindra Kumar
Publication: The Statesman
Date: September 30, 2001
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.)
