Media Trial, Defamation, and Character Assassination!

Reputation is an important element which adds value and quality to one’s life. We can say that reputation enables a person to live with dignity in the society. In P. Rathinam vs Union of India, referring to ‘Right to Life’, the Supreme Court said, “the word ‘Life’ doesn’t mean mere animal existence, but to live a life with human dignity”. It goes without saying that dignity is a very important part of a meaningful life. Now, the question is, “Is violation of dignity of an individual amount to violation of Right to Life as enshrined in Article 21 of our constitution?”. Let us examine. 

If a person loses his dignity in the society by virtue of his/her action(s), he/she alone is responsible for that. However, when the person’s dignity is violated by means of willful and malicious Libel or Slander by another person, then, we may have to consider that the offender violated the Right to Life of a person. In short, defamation is an act of violation of the Right of a person to lead a dignified and meaningful life. In Parmiter vs Coupland, Parke B defined defamation as ‘a publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule’. This definition rightly sums up the act of defamation. 

In India, law deals with defamation in 2 ways. 1) Civil. 2) Criminal. In a civil suit, plaintiff can claim compensation for damages incurred by him because of the actions of the offender. In such a case, the Courts measure the damage incurred by the plaintiff due to the offender’s actions and suitable compensation is awarded. However, in criminal cases, it is not possible to quantify the damage incurred to the plaintiff/victim. In this article, I would like to deal with those cases of defamation which cause irreparable damage to the life of an individual. 

This week, the case of a lady posting the photograph of a boy on Facebook alleging that he passed lewd comments at her is being widely discussed in the media. In this case, the photograph of the boy is being shown on national television and the boy is being judged a “pervert”. The full facts are not known in this case. No witnesses, no investigation, no trial. Just based on a Facebook post by a girl, the boy is being condemned by the national media as a rogue.

Also, recently, there was a video which went viral on social media. This video showed two girls beating two boys in a public bus in Rohtak, Haryana. This attracted the attention of the media and in no time the girls appeared in all mainstream media channels and explained that the two boys in the video “molested” them. Some media channels portrayed the two girls as “Brave Hearts” while some judged the two boys guilty of molesting the two girls. Some channels showed the photographs of the two boys again and again and judged them “characterless”. At the time when this incident took place, the two boys were taking part in Indian Army’s recruitment process. Army officials reacted to the stories in the media and refused to allow these two boys from taking part in further selection process. Media passed judgments in this case even without ascertaining the facts. They just went by the published video and what the girls had to say about it. Haryana government ordered a probe into this matter and the SIT expressed doubts about the version of the girls. At the time of writing this article, the case is still in the trial court and a final judgment hasn’t come out yet. 

Here, there is one important point. Most media channels and newspapers gave prominence to what the girls said and portrayed the two boys as criminals. All this was done even before an FIR was filed and an investigation began. The two boys already lost an opportunity to attend Army recruitment process. Their photographs were flashed on all television channels portraying them as criminals. 

The above two examples go on to prove one point. We are living in very dangerous times where it just takes one social media post by a woman and the entire national media carries out the character assassination of a boy without even ascertaining the facts. There is no doubt that boys who molest/misbehave should be punished severely. But, there’s something called as a “due process” and our law states that an accused is to be presumed innocent till proven guilty by a court of law. 

Now, coming back to the main point of this article, media, being a responsible organ of our democracy, is expected to carry out due diligence before publishing any content. Here in this case, forget due diligence, media blindly went by what the two girls said and resorted to the act of defaming the two boys. Imagine the insult, pain, and social stigma the two boys and their respective families must have faced. Imagine their pain of being deprived of an opportunity to take part in the recruitment process by the Indian Army. The most painful part of this entire story is, this was done even before a formal investigation in this case began. If the court rules that the boys committed no wrong and it was indeed the girls who lied about being molested, the girls can be charged for malicious prosecution. But, what about the media? The media, which flashed the photographs of the two boys for hours together, will it then spare the same amount of television time in declaring them innocent? In this case, can the boys merely get justice by pressing a Civil suit for damages? If so, how can the damage done to them be quantified? The answer is, the pain, social stigma, and mental agony undergone the boys for falsely being portrayed as molesters cannot be quantified, and, the right thing to do is to press charges of criminal defamation against all the media channels which judged the boys guilty without trial. 

The increasing number of media trial and character assassinations by the media these days throws open the question of increasing the quantum of punishment for criminal defamation in India. Currently, Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifies a maximum punishment of 2 years of simple imprisonment for proven charges of criminal defamation. Considering the amount of damage defamation does to a person’s life and his/her mental and physical health, 2 years of simple imprisonment is simply not enough. There should be a debate on increasing the quantum of punishment in such cases in addition to issuing specific guidelines to the media to prevent Prime Time Kangaroo courts from passing judgments for the sake of TRPs.

There’s a world wide debate going on about decriminalizing defamation as it infringes on the freedom of speech and expression. Let’s understand one thing here. No freedom is absolute and reasonable restrictions should apply. Also, Edward Coke’s famous principle of jurisprudence, “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” should be applied here. Which means, “an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind mind is also guilty”. Therefore, an act of willful slander or libel, done with a malicious intent of defaming a person(s) should be severely punishable. This \should be applied even more strictly when it comes to media. Media, being a responsible organ of our democracy, is expected to do reasonable due diligence before passing judgments on a person’s character. Failing to perform the basic duty of ascertaining the facts before publishing half truths and lies amounts to criminal negligence and media should be held accountable for that. At the end of the day, one cannot get away without any punishment after defaming and permanently destroying the image of individual(s). 

There should be a debate on protecting the rights of an accused. Just like the way law stipulates that the identity of a rape victim should be kept confidential, it’s important to protect the identity of an accused till the trial is complete. Otherwise, those who face false allegations will not only have to face the brunt of criminal proceedings, but also social outcast and a permanent damage to their reputation.

Beginning of the emergence of India as a World leader

When India became independent in 1947, the world was still recovering from the disturbing effects of the World War II. The newly formed Government of India, due to it's Socialist policies and inclinations, was seen inclined towards the Soviet Union, though we were officially non-aligned. In 1991, things have changed. World witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Union and India too, under PV Narasimha Rao, saw a radical shift in it's economic policies. India had then just started opening up it's markets to the world due to the Liberalization, Privatization, Globalization (Dubbed as LPG policies) of Narasimha Rao government. This was when the US saw it's commercial interests in India and started coming closer to us. From 1991, till date, except for a brief period of time after the Pokhran Nuclear Tests by India, Indo-US relations have been continuously growing to new heights. Indo-US relations scaled to their all time high when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the Indo-US Nuclear deal. 

Despite all this, there is a great amount of discontent among those Indians who closely follow our foreign policy. We appear as a soft state and haven't been able to exert pressure on the US to act tough against Pakistan. Though hundreds of thousands of Indians today work in the US and American companies employ thousands of Indians in India, we have to realize that it is the American economy which is benefiting out of India and not the other way round. We haven't been able to bargain strategic interests from America in lieu of the business opportunities which we are providing them.

With Prime Minister Narendra Modi taking charge, we are likely to witness a drastic shift in our foreign policy. Knowing PM Modi's Nationalistic approach, it will be difficult for the US to expect one sided gains in the Indo-US relations. India's priorities will be aimed at strengthening ties with those nations where we see mutual benefit, both commercially and strategically. Modi inviting all the heads of SAARC nations to his swearing-in ceremony marks the beginning of India's departure from it's earlier diplomatic positions. India now appears to be more aggressive in pursuing the "Look East Policy". With America reaching a point of economic saturation and the European economy in doldrums, India should first put in efforts to befriend all Asian nations. The combined power and potential of the Asian economies put together is yet to be recognized by the world. 

If we look at South-East Asia, both Japan and South Korea are deeply uncomfortable with China's aggressive posturing. So are we. Therefore, India's relations with Japan and South Korea will ensure China is kept on a back foot. This also gives us a strategic advantage in the South-China Sea where India's ONGC is involved in Oil Exploration. Strengthening ties with Japan also has an additional advantage for us. Japan is facing a challenge of aging population and inadequate productive population. This is where India can pitch in and help Japan. India's young population can actively be engaged on Japanese companies. On the other hand, we can seek the help of  the Japanese in building our manufacturing industry. Japan is a world leader in manufacturing and their help will be very useful to India. This will help us reduce our imports from China, thereby creating a self-driven, self-sustaining Indian industry and a subsequent reduction in our trade deficit. 

Let us hope that India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, emerges as a Friendly-Yet-Assertive, Compassionate-Yet-Powerful nation in the world. 

Are we back to the days of Ramsay MacDonald?

For those of you who did not read or hear about Ramsay MacDonald, here is a primer. In the year 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced "The Communal Award", granting separate electorates and constituencies in British-India based on caste and religion. This meant, Forward Castes, Lower Castes, Muslims, Dalits, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Anglo-Indians would have separate representation. After a lot of controversy, this was amended to put all Hindus, irrespective of caste under one electorate. This was one of the many means adopted by the Britishers as part of their "Divide and Rule Policy". 

Let us look at the scenario today. Constitution provides provision for reserving constituencies for SC/ST candidates only. There are demands from various sections asking a particular percentage of constituencies to be reserved for every caste, and there are political parties like TDP who even announced that they will allocate 50% of the constituencies for Backward Castes. On the other hand, we have a self-proclaimed "secular" media which judges the broad-mindedness of political parties based on the number of seats they give to candidates of a particular religion. 

Differentiation doesn't stop right there. Even the law differentiates its citizens based on religion. Mrs. Shah Bano, a poor old Muslim lady was denied her right to alimony by the then Rajiv Gandhi government because of her religion. Recently, we have seen the UPA's pet project, "Prevention of Communal Violence Bill", where the majority religion people are always projected as aggressors and the minorities as victims, in an event of a riot. Congress party now came up with the idea of sub-plan (exclusive budget) for minorities. We already have sub-plans in some of the states exclusively for SC/ST/BC communities. 

It's now clear that Ramsay MacDonald only divided the country's communities by electorates. But, our rulers have divided the communities even by budget, identity, and even based on the law. With all the above said facts, every time we call ourselves a "Secular Republic", irony would die a thousand deaths!

If democracy has 4 pillars, standards of quality should be same for all the pillars

The most fundamental unit of any building structure comprises of four pillars. These pillars determine the longevity and stability of the building. Also, these four pillars never meet. They are parallel, but complement each other. It also goes without saying that the standards of quality should remain high and uniform for all the four pillars. Now, we all acknowledge that for a democracy, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, and Press are like four pillars. That essentially means that the standards of probity should be high and uniform across the four bodies, which includes Press, on which I would like to focus in this article.

With the advent of 24x7 news media, the standards of journalism have hit a new low. There are two major reasons for this. First: Many politicians, business tycoons have invested in media houses with a purpose of promoting their political/business interests. Second: With too many news channels on air, journalism has become a highly competitive business and the rat race for TRPs is ensuring that quality takes a back seat.

Not very long ago, Britain was shaken by sensational revelations of some senior journalists involved in invasion of privacy of some private citizens for the sake of obtaining news. UK’s parliament reacted to it immediately and Lord Justice Leveson Commission of Enquiry was constituted to go into the aspect of media ethics. Result? A newspaper, owned by an international media baron with a history of over 100 years was shut down and many journalists and politicians, including the incumbent and former Prime Ministers were questioned by the Commission, which was telecast LIVE. Leveson Commission submitted a 2000 page report with guidelines on relations between politicians/bureaucrats/judges and journalists. The Commission also recommended the constitution of a new body to look into aspects of media ethics and violations. This needs to be appreciated. In India, there were much more serious violation of ethics by many media houses and no serious action was initiated.

Media is not a holy cow. Journalists should understand that their right to question the system comes with the responsibility to answer all legitimate questions. A free press is very important. But, no freedom is absolute and reasonable restrictions are a must. And for the benefit of the media and the country as a whole, it is important that we define these regulations in writing, and, in form of a law. When specific laws are there to govern and regulate the other three pillars of democracy, i.e., legislature, executive, and judiciary, why should the fourth pillar be governed by unwritten, unsaid rules and self-imposed regulations?

Editorial Independence:

It should be made mandatory for media houses to publicly declare about the issues on which they have conflict of interest. For example, if a media house is covering a legal case against a particular businessman, it should make it clear if that particular businessman or his company or his blood relations have a stake in their channel. This may sound like a very absurd idea, but it is needed. If a businessman can invest money into a media house and get coverage in his favor, there won’t be any difference between journalism and paid news.

Also, due care needs to be taken to ensure that differentiation is made between news and opinions while telecasting news. Editors have full right to take a particular position on any issue. However, the editor’s opinion on the issue should not be seen by a common man as “News”. This is definitely an aspect of media ethics.

Privacy and Confidentiality:

Of late, many media houses describe their journalism as “courageous”, “path breaking”, etc. Well, some of them may be genuine. I wonder, is placing secret cameras and hearing devices called “courage”? It definitely is not. In privacy, individuals have every right to talk what they want to and this kind of eavesdropping in the name of “sting operations” is nothing but a blot on journalism. It is only fair to expect written norms in place to censure media from invading into the privacy of individuals in the name of sting operations.

Did anyone of you wonder how we have secret documents leaking into the media so often? Who is doing that? What is the intent behind this? It is for sure that someone leaks a document only with an intent of making the contents public. Therefore, the intent is malafide. And the unfortunate truth here is that media is acting as a catalyst. To be even more crude, in all the incidents involving leakage of secret documents, media is indeed a co-conspirator. Official Secrets Act needs to be amended to make place for penalties for publicizing content which is classified as a “secret”.

Media Trial:

Last point, but the most dangerous one. Prime Time debates are less intended for a  constructive and useful discussion and more aimed at passing judgments. When some allegations come out in public, media can cover it along with the view point of the person against whom the allegations are levelled. But, the problem comes up when the media starts passing judgments. This is a very very dangerous thing. What if the allegations later turn out to be false? The same media, which would have spent 100 hours discussing about the allegations just gives 2 minutes of airtime to say that the allegations are false. What about the irreversible damage caused to the reputation of the individual?

Conclusion:

Media cannot absolve itself of accountability with its “holier than thou” attitude. Media has the responsibility to answer all legitimate questions, just like the way politicians and bureaucrats are expected to. Media is not above the law. 

Right to Education : Policy vs Populism

With SC upholding the constitutional validity of Right to Education Act, one of the pet projects of the UPA government, the doors to private schools are now open to the economically backward students. This is definitely a good news for all the parents who want to give best quality education to their children but cannot afford the exorbitant fee charged by private schools. 

The road for RTE has not been smooth. There were a lot of objections and counter views. School managements challenged that such an act of reserving 25% seats for economically backward students infringes upon their right to run the schools. The government strongly defended its policy on RTE by stating that it has an obligation to ensure free and compulsory education to children till the age of 14 years. It is good to note that the government has finally woken up and has taken note of its responsibility.

In the past few years, we have seen the government increasing quota for OBCs in educational institutions like IITs and IIMs. Also, we have seen the government providing scholarships for economically weaker sections in states like Andhra Pradesh. Fee structure in professional colleges have been regulated. This is all good. But, how did the government take so many steps without even strengthening the grass root level primary and secondary educational institutions? We have private schools across the country charging high fee and donations from students. In Hyderabad, I know of parents who paid Rs 100,000 per annum as fee for a first standard child. On the other side, many of the government schools lack the basic infrastructure like fans, benches, and toilets. This is like constructing the 10th floor of a building even before its foundation is ready.

The RTE also says that the fee expenses for the 25% children in private schools will be reimbursed to the school managements by the state governments. Which means, apart from the expense on the state run schools, this is an additional expenditure. Instead, why can't the government use the same money to scale up the government schools on par with the private schools? The answer for this probably lies in the potential of populist measures like RTE to translate into votes in the elections.

What we also have to realise is the fact that the 25% quota is only for people whose family's annual income is below Rs 200,000. This is where there is a hard confrontation between technicalities and reality. Family with two children and two lakh income is eligible but a family with 2.5 lakh income and four children is not eligible to avail this benefit. What about those children? How will their "Right to Free and Compulsory Education" be met by the government? This poses a problem of children getting entangled between technicalities and red tape. We have seen this in Andhra Pradesh where engineering colleges have not let poor students enter the colleges as the government failed to release the fee reimbursement to the institutions.

There is also a psychological angle which has to be thought of. A son of an auto rickshaw driver attending a certain 'concept school' or 'international school' in his neighborhood may not be able to fully gel with the other 75% students from affluent families due to mismatch between their economic statuses. The 25% group in the classroom may not be able to afford the lavish fancy dress competition or an expensive excursion organised by the school. Child psychology is very tender and may get disturbed even with these kind of problems. Here, a lot of care needs to be taken by the school managements to ensure that level playing field is created among all the children in the classroom irrespective of their economic status. 

This legislation only goes on to show that the government has accepted its inability to maintain government schools on par with private schools. While RTE will definitely help a lot of poor children in the urban and semi-urban areas by giving them entry into private schools, the future of children from rural and remote areas still remains a question. The government has the ability and power to depute excellent teachers to the rural areas and train children on par with their counter parts in the urban areas. The government seems to have totally ignored this fact. In most states, university colleges funded by the government attract the brightest of the students (JNU, DU, IIT, NIT, IIM, OU, JNTU etc,.). Why can't that be the case with the government run primary and secondary schools?

The intention behind providing quality education to all is good. But, the means chosen does not seem very effective. A good quality primary education is the foundation for building a strong generation of citizens of this country. Therefore, this foundation should be robust and fool proof. It is important for the government to ensure that quality education is affordable not just to a particular section of the society, but to everyone in the country. Governments in all the states should ensure strict enforcement of fee limits on schools like the way they have been implemented in the professional colleges. After all, it is not just sufficient to provide free and compulsory education to all, but it is necessary to ensure that it is done in a fair manner.

Bharat Ratna - The Truth

We all may see Bharat Ratna award as the highest civilian honour in India. However, I'd like to make some interesting observations about this award which will certainly prompt you to doubt the credibility and sanctity of it.

Here are the facts.

• Jawaharlal Nehru got it in 1955 when he was serving as the Prime Minister.
• Indira Gandhi got it in 1971 when she was serving as the Prime Minister.
• Rajiv Gandhi got it in 1991 soon after his death.

Now, here are the questions.

• While Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel passed away in 1950, why did the government take 41 years to award him Bharat Ratna in 1991 along with Rajiv Gandhi?
• While Subhash Chandra Bose was awarded Bharat  Ratna in 1992, it was withdrawn due to an ambiguity whether he's dead or alive.  So, the clause "posthumously" couldn't be determined in his case. Even till date he hasn't been awarded Bharat Ratna.
• Dr. B R Ambedkar, a person who doesn't belong to Gandhi/Nehru dynasty got Bharat Ratna in 1990. why so?
• Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, a Pakistani national and a close friend of M K Gandhi, got Bharat Ratna in 1987, even before Sardar Patel.  How fair is this?

The above facts clearly force us to arrive at a conclusion that Bharat Ratna is an award of the Gandhi family and their sycophants. Your comments welcome on this.

The paradoxical health policy

During the tenure of Dr. Y S Rajasekhara Reddy as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, a government sponsored cashless hospitalization scheme named "Rajiv Aarogya Shree" was rolled out by the A.P. State Government. The then CM YSR claimed that the purpose of this scheme was to ensure even the poorest of the people get access to treatment in corporate hospitals. This was a very huge program and involved huge governmental expenditure.

Now, let us look at what the responsibility of the Health Ministry at the State Governmental level. The health ministry is supposed to look after the development of all primary health centres, general hospitals, and other state run hospitals. Needless to say, the government has an obligation to use the tax-payers' money to improve the infrastructure of the state run hospitals and also attract best doctors in the country to work in those hospitals. 

Instead of taking up the initiative to improve the existing state of the government run hospitals and make sure that these hospitals provide healthcare on par with the private hospitals, I seriously don't understand the reason behind the government spending such huge expenditure on corporate hospitals. Here, in case we feel that it's important to have a free market economy in place, then, the government should totally absolve itself from the responsibility of maintaining any health centres or hospitals and only concentrate on the implementation of the public health insurance schemes. This will in fact ensure better and uniform medical services to all classes of people irrespective of their financial stature and the competition between hospitals will improve leading to cost effective healthcare for common people.

If this government sponsored cashless hospitalization scheme for the poor is made popular all over the country, what will be the future of the government run hospitals? They will only become sources of misappropriation of public funds in the disguise of expenditure.