No to FDI in print

Published : Apr 13, 2002 00:00 IST

THE Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology, in its 32nd report, has firmly and by a substantial majority chosen to continue with the longstanding policy barring foreign investment in the print media sector. The committee witnessed a flurry of activity by certain members who urged that foreign direct investment (FDI) to the extent of 26 per cent of equity in publications dealing with news and current affairs be permitted. But finally it held firm to the position taken in the Union Cabinet Resolution of 1955, which in turn was based on the recommendations of the Press Commission appointed in 1953, and prohibited both foreign investment in the Indian print media and the publication on Indian soil of foreign journals dealing with news and current affairs.

Beginning its hearings in January 2001, the committee held 13 sittings at which it heard senior editors and journalists, media professionals and jurists. The views of three Union Ministries - Home Affairs, Law, Justice and Company Affairs, and Information and Broadcasting - were sought. The committee held one sitting in January this year to finalise its recommendations. But with only 16 of its 37 members attending, agreement proved elusive. The final report was approved on February 26, with 26 of the members attending.

The majority opinion within the committee was that the print media are among the most powerful influences upon the public mood and the political agenda - even more so, they argued, than the electronic and digital media. Opening this sector to foreign investment of any kind posed the danger of converting domestic political landscape into a battleground for foreign lobbies and interests. The majority found no merit in the argument that with foreign investment now being an accomplished fact in the newer media, there was no basis for denying print alone of the supposed benefits. In arriving at its conclusions, the committee also relied on recent resolutions of professional bodies of editors and journalists, as also on the assessments of the security implications offered by the Home Ministry. The Law Ministry rendered its opinion on the implications that equity ownership - even of a minority character - could have on management and editorial control.

The committee was of the opinion that the Article 19 guarantee of freedom of expression, which provides the framework for the concept of the free press, did not apply to foreign nationals. They could not in this respect claim that they had the constitutionally guaranteed right to enter the newspaper business in India.

From around December 2001, when the committee began to deliberate on its final report, it began to witness an insistent campaign, associated in particular with newspaper magnate and Bharatiya Janata Party MP Narendra Mohan, to permit FDI in the print media to a limit of 26 per cent, subject to certain safeguards that would ensure management and editorial control in Indian hands. Mohan, who is the chairman of the Jagran group - one of the most successful media enterprises in the Hindi belt - succeeded to the extent that, when the committee met in February, it had two draft reports before it: one reflecting his position and the other upholding the 1955 Cabinet Resolution.

The majority opinion, however, was not in favour of the position advanced by Narendra Mohan. This was ascertained by the committee chairman, veteran Communist Party of India (Marxist) parliamentarian Somnath Chatterjee. A few procedural manoeuvres by Narendra Mohan at the February meeting proved to be of no avail, with the Left parties and the Congress firmly backing the sustenance of the 1955 position. The committee did concede, though, that in the interests of the science and technology sector, reputed foreign publications in these fields could be allowed into the country, provided they were in collaboration with well-established and competent Indian publishers.

A note submitted by Bhartuhari Mahtab, Member of Parliament form Orissa, has opposed this exemption and argued for more stringent ownership norms in the digital and electronic media sectors. Foreign investment in these sectors, he has argued, grew because of a policy vacuum and it may still not be too late to correct the consequences of that prolonged default.

Eight other notes were submitted reflecting the views of nine members, which urged that FDI in print media should be permitted subject to certain safeguards. After certain expunctions to ensure conformity with parliamentary practice and procedure, these have been appended to the committee's report as notes of dissent.

Sukumar Muralidharan

IN a major shake-up, the Madras High Court on April 4 transferred 32 judicial officers in Tamil Nadu. Among the transferred were three special judges hearing corruption cases against Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, her friend Sasikala Natarjan and her former Cabinet colleagues. Another judge who was shifted was S. Ashok Kumar, Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Ashok Kumar had criticised the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID), for its shoddy handling of the "flyovers case" in which former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Mayor of Chennai Corporation M.K. Stalin are accused. Ashok Kumar even went to the extent of saying that the registration of this case was a conspiracy with the ulterior motive of throwing the accused behind bars. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam president Karunanidhi and his son Stalin are political rivals of Jayalalithaa, who is general secretary of All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, now in power in the State.

Knowledgeable advocates said that with the new judges having to hear the corruption cases, verdicts would be considerably delayed. Besides, the general "philosophy" was that judges should not be transferred when they were halfway through hearing a certain case. Besides, transfers were normally done at the end of the academic year in May so that the education of the children of judges was not affected.

There are seven cases of corruption against Jayalalithaa and her former Ministers. They were being heard by three special judges, Chennai. Special Judge-I, A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan has now been posted as District Judge, Tirunelveli. Special Judge-II S.P. Darwesh has been posted as District Judge, Namakkal. Special Judge-III P. Anbazhagan has been posted as Special Judge-I in the place of Arumugaperumal Adityan. Judge Ashok Kumar has been transferred and posted as District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. Arumugaperumal Adityan was hearing the Rs.66.65-crore "disproportionate wealth" case in which Jayalalithaa and Sasikala are among the accused. The prosecution alleged that Jayalalithaa had amassed Rs.66.65 crores when she was Chief Minister from 1991 to 1996 and that this was disproportionate to her known sources of income. The same judge was hearing the "London Hotels case" in which Jayalalithaa and T.T.V. Dinakaran, Sasikala's nephew, are the accused. Dinakaran is the AIADMK's Lok Sabha member from Periakulam constituency. Trial was under way before Arumugaperumal Adityan in the Rs.28.29 crores "SPIC-TIDCO disinvestment case" in which Jayalalithaa and SPIC president A.C. Muthiah are among the accused.

Advocates said that Arumugaperumal Adityan was a strict judge who had declined to grant adjournments in the disproportionate wealth case. Only a few witnesses remained to be examined by the prosecution in this case. He had dismissed petitions seeking a correct and complete set of documents in Tamil in the London Hotels case. He had observed that the petitions had been filed with a view to slowing down the progress of the case.

Anbazhagan had sentenced Jayalalithaa in October 2000 to three years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively in the "Jaya Publications" and "Sasi Enterprises" cases against her. This made her ineligible to contest the Assembly elections held in May 2001. Judge Darwesh had acquitted Jayalalithaa in the "coal case" in December 2001.

In March, the Tamil Nadu government ordered the abolition of two of the three special courts. Jayalalithaa claimed that they were not being disbanded but the numbers were being reduced as they did not have much work.

Some advocates remarked that the transfer of Ashok Kumar came at a time when the charge-sheet in the case would have been filed before him in some weeks. On March 19, the judge accused the CB-CID of selective prosecution and granted anticipatory bail to N. Elangovan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, who was accused of tampering with the mark-sheets of those who appeared for the examination for sub-inspectors' posts. A quo warranto petition is pending in the Madras High Court against Ashok Kumar on his declaration of religion at the time of his appointment.

Advocates said that judges were normally transferred once in three years. However, it was just 18 months since Ashok Kumar took over as Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

T.S. Subramanian

ON March 31, 2002, Dr. A.K. Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and E.A. Reshetnikov, Deputy Minister for Atomic Energy, the Russian Federation, unveiled a plaque to mark the beginning of the construction of the Koodankulam Atomic Power Project. The top brass of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPC), and Russian organisations such as Atomstroyexport and Atomenergoproject, were present.

V.K. Chaturvedi, Chairman and Managing Director of the NPC, said that the mega project was the beginning of a new chapter of cooperation between India and Russia in the field of nuclear power. Dr. Kakodkar called it a great day and a great beginning. Dr. S.K. Agrawal said that the gathering of eminent nuclear engineers and scientists from India and Russia at Koodankulam demonstrated their affinity for the project. S.K. Jain, Director (Koodankulam, Light Water Reactors), NPC, said that although the event was delayed, everybody was happy that it had arrived. V.V. Kozlov, Director General, Atomstroyexport, Moscow, praised the contribution of former AEC Chairman Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, to making the project a reality. The project envisages the building of two Russian reactors called VVER-1000, each of which will generate 1,000 MWe at a cost of Rs.13,171 crores. The reactors will come up on a coastal site near Koodankulam village in the Radhapuram taluk of Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu. The plant site covers 420 hectares. The reactors will use enriched uranium as fuel and light water as both moderator and coolant. The reactor buildings will be 80 m tall. The foundation is 9 m deep. Russian engineers will design the reactors, and supply the main equipment, which includes components and sub-systems.

The Russians will supply enriched uranium, which will sustain the reactors throughout their life, which is 60 years. NPC will build the two reactors under Russian supervision. Spent waste will be reprocessed into plutonium at Koodankulam. A waste immobilisation facility will also be built. The reactors will come under Inter-national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. IAEA inspectors will periodically visit the facility to check on the fissile material, plutonium (Frontline, Decem- ber 7, 2001).

Electricity will flow into the grid from the first unit in November 2007, and from the second unit one year later. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Pondicherry will share the power.

The work that is already completed includes the preparation of the detailed project report, a health survey among the surrounding population, the levelling of the site, the construction of 46 residential quarters and a meteorological laboratory and the installation of a micro meteorological tower. The construction of an administrative building, warehouses, sub-stations, a fire station and so on is under way.

The same day, at the Kaiga Atomic Power Station, 70 km from Karwar in Karnataka, the first pour of concrete for the construction of Units 3 and 4 took place. When completed, the units will generate 220 MWe each. The first two units are already generating 220 MWe each. Project Director R.C. Sinha and Station Director D.C. Thakur were present on the occasion. These indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both moderator and coolant.

T.S. Subramanian
Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment