Question of ethics

THERE WERE PROTESTS outside the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in Delhi after a television sting operation claimed one of its teachers was luring students into prostitution. - MUSTAFA QURAISHI/AP

A landmark court judgment in Lucknow and a fake sting operation in Delhi highlight the importance of media ethics.

FAKE sting operations, concocted interviews and distorted presentation of facts are the stuff of yellow journalism. Some recent events have highlighted this fact, forcing media professionals to think about a code of ethics for all sections of the media. Although such a code exists for the print media, it has not always been followed by journalists. A recent court order in Lucknow, awarding one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 to a reporter and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 to the editor and printer\publisher of a prominent daily, could become a deterrent to irresponsible journalism.

The order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Suresh Chandra in Lucknow on September 3 against a reporter and the editor and printer\publisher of The Pioneer and Swatantra Bharat newspapers for publishing a concocted and defamatory interview of the then District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar, A.K. Singh.

The two newspapers published the interview after the firing, on October 2, 1994, on people who were on their way to New Delhi for a demonstration demanding a separate State of Uttarakhand. The demonstrators were stopped by the police at Rampur Tiraha and several people died in the firing that followed. There were also allegations of rape of some of the women activists by policemen. Reporter Raman Kirpals interview of the District Magistrate quoted him as saying: You see, it is human tendency when a woman is seen at a lonely place in jungle, any man will be inclined to rape her.

This comment drew sharp criticism from many quarters. A.K. Singh, however, denied having said this and said he had not given any interview to Kirpal. His denial, however, was not given due coverage by the two newspapers. He then complained to the Press Council of India on October 17, 1994, and on October 24, 1994. The Press Council, then headed by Justice P.B. Sawant, found that the interview was concocted and concluded that it was defamatory. On March 25, 1996, it admonished the two newspapers for publishing it.

In 1997, A.K. Singh filed a criminal case under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code against Raman Kirpal; A.K. Bhattacharya, the then editor of The Pioneer, Lucknow and Delhi; Ghanshyam Pankaj, editor of the Hindi daily Swatantra Bharat; and Sanjiv Kanwar and Dipak Mukherjee, printer\publisher of The Pioneer and Swatantra Bharat, respectively.

After a 10-year-long trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate Suresh Chandra pronounced his judgment on September 3, 2007, holding the reporter and the other accused guilty. The Judge said in his order that it had been established that the interview published by the accused was concocted and defamatory. He also said that the accused persons had failed to prove that the reporter had actually taken the interview.

This judgment, however, has not grabbed the kind of media space that it should have. Senior editors, including those who were not associated with the case in any way, refused to comment, saying that the matter should be left alone since an appeal was pending in the High Court.

Media-watchers say this tendency to avoid introspection on the part of the media is assuming serious proportions. There are also apprehensions that if this trend continues, there might arise the question of intervention by outside agencies, which could bring undesirable consequences. Self-criticism and self-censorship are the only things that can sustain responsible and honest journalism over a period of time. If I were an editor today, I would have given enough prominence to this news, said Hiranmay Karlekar, member of the Press Council of India and a veteran journalist who quit Hindustan Times as editor owing to differences with the then management during the Emergency.

The print media, at least, have a watchdog in the form of the Press Council of India, which may not have punitive powers but can censure and admonish erring media professionals. There is, however, no such watchdog for the electronic media. Hence the surfeit of sting operations, not all of which are genuine, as the recent case of Uma Khurana showed.

Uma Khurana, a mathematics teacher at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya in Delhis Daryaganj, lost her job, had to face a violent mob, and spent a week in jail after a sting operation claimed she was luring students into the flesh trade. It now appears that she was framed and the two men who organised the sting are in police custody.

The police registered a case against Uma Khurana under the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act after the sting was aired by a TV channel on the morning of August 30. Soon afterwards, there were protests outside the school and a mob forced its way into the premises and attacked the teacher, who was escorted away by the police.

Later the Delhi government declared that Uma Khurana had been suspended and that a probe had been ordered. On September 10, a Delhi court granted her bail, saying she was not an accused but a victim .

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate said that it now appeared that she had no role to play in the alleged prostitution racket. Investigations have reportedly shown that the two men now in police custody for organising the sting, Prakash Singh and Virender Arora, wanted to settle an old score with Uma Khurana: she apparently owed Virender money. The Delhi High Court has since asked the government to reinstate her in her old job.

Whatever the reparations that follow, Uma Khurana has already suffered enough. I want my life back, said the distraught teacher. Besides, the inquiry that will precede her reinstatement may take a long time.

It is a pity that we cannot do anything in this case. The electronic media are outside our jurisdiction, Hiranmay Karlekar said. The Editors Guild of India now realises that there is a need for a watchdog for the electronic media. A sub-committee set up by the Guild to consider the draft Broadcast Services Regulation Bill and content code for the electronic media, with Q.W. Naqwi of Aaj Tak and K.S. Sachidananda Murthy of Malayala Manorama as members besides Karlekar, has come up with the suggestion for a code of ethics for news and current affairs channels.

The code should be self-regulatory and should be evolved by the news and current affairs channels through the News Broadcasters Association and with help from the Editors Guild of India, the sub-committee says, insisting that there should be no government control. It says that there should be specific dos and donts for the content of TV channels and suggests that the model of the Press Council can be followed for the electronic media as well. One suggestion is that the Press Council of India could be converted into a Media Council with separate mechanisms to deal with the print and electronic media.

The Press Council, which will meet in Goa on October 3, 4 and 5, may come up with a formal proposal on the matter. Even though we have no control over the electronic media, we will certainly take a view on fake sting operations. The time has come for us to take a look inward and come up with remedial measures, said Sachidananda Murthy.

It is high time they did so.