The Press Council of India, in the midst of a raging controversy, is operating along the lines of the British Press Council. The latter was wound up a few years ago because it had failed to be an effective instrument for raising press standards. Now a new forum to deal with complaints has emerged, though India is still at the council stage, grappling with problems which the British Press Council faced and failed to sort out.
But it seems that the Press Council of India is not making any headway either, nor is it having any impact on newspapers. So the second question is: what should be the arrangement? The first point concerns dealing with the powers of the Council's chairman, Justice Markandey Katju, who is making himself busy in many areas, particularly in the forbidden field of politics. This was never anticipated either by the British Press Council or that of India.
Once politics comes in, there is no way to limit or eliminate it. Justice Markandey Katju has crossed swords with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose leader in Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, gave her approval as per the rules for the constitution of the Press Council.
The new controversy revolves around Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. In an article, Justice Katju criticised Modi for the 1992 minority riots and has asked the country not to make the same mistake the Nazis did in 1933.
In fact, the gauntlet thrown by Justice Katju has been picked up by the Opposition leader in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley. He has said that 'Justice Katju's political bias is clear from the fact that, on the burning of the Sabarmati Express in Godhara, he says there is still a mystery about what happened in Godhara. Is he trying to hold a brief for those convicted of setting the train on fire?' The fact is, the Council, Justice Katju or Arun Jaitley cannot sort out this problem because it does not lie in the domain of the press.
In the dust that the controversy has raised, the workings of the Council have come to be doubted and the importance of the chairman has become exaggerated. The adverse fallout has landed on the press, which the Council is supposed to serve by way of settling disputes among newspapers or addressing their grievances against the state and central governments. The man on the street has also been left at a loose end, because his complaints against a particular newspaper are either delayed or not taken up by the Council, which has become embroiled in politics.
The esteem which the government accords to the Press Council can be deduced from the fact that the Lok Sabha Speaker himself nominated members of the first Press Council. It was laid down in the law that the Council would uphold the freedom of the press. Violation of ethics would be judged by journalists' own peers, that is, other journalists.
It was made clear at the time of the legislation that the Council was not another law court. Yet it would serve as a forum where erring newspapers would be criticised, censured or sanctioned. The Council is a moral authority and therefore it has no teeth. To demand teeth, as chairman Justice Katju has done, is to negate the very purpose for which the Council was established. The Council cannot in any way become another court of law. If it did, the entire purpose of the exercise would be lost.
One wishes that the chairman would stay within the limits of what the law lays down. No doubt, Justice Katju is an able person who once occupied the position of a Supreme Court judge with distinction. He has not, however, appreciated the inhibitions which he, as the Council's chairman, has to face. Even his maiden speech at the Council showed contempt for journalists who, he said, were 90 per cent illiterate. Had he made the remark within the context of what a journalist has to learn, it would have made more sense. But Justice Katju went on counting his own educational achievements and betraying his ignorance about what journalists are supposed to do.
In fact, the office of chairman has never been politicised except once since independence. That was during the emergency (1975-77), when Justice N Rajagopala Iyengar was the Press Council chairman. He became part of the censorship set-up which the Press Council was expected to oppose in order to uphold the freedom of the press.
Justice Katju's is a quasi-judicial position. He cannot afford to take issue with Jaitley and ask for his resignation because this is not Justice Katju's job. Nor can he demand the resignation of an editor, although this is closer to Justice Katju's domain.
To say that Justice Katju is indiscreet is too mild a statement. At a seminar, he once said that to resolve the question of Kashmir, India and Pakistan would have to unite. Nobody took him seriously. Otherwise, his remark could have caused a lot of diplomatic embarrassment to New Delhi. Justice Katju would be well advised to know the limits of his office and stay within its confines.
No comments:
Post a Comment