Existential questions

The Press Council of India (PCI) is back in the news after a long break. Its controversial attempt to intervene in a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court by Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir Times, appears to have energised significant sections of the media community. Several statements decrying the move were issued by journalists’ organisations, individual media professionals and other citizens across the country soon after its covert move came to public notice on August 23. Editorials in leading newspapers, including this one, observed that the Council’s apparent support of the severe, government-imposed restrictions on communication in Jammu and Kashmir “was brazenly contrary to its mandate and purpose” and “went against its own charter.”

Bhasin’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, sought the immediate relaxation of all restrictions on mobile, internet and landline services in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as of strict restrictions on freedom of movement, so that journalists could practise their profession and exercise their right to report and publish, in accordance with their rights (and duties) under Articles 14, I9 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition, submitted on August 10, also pointed out that the restrictions, which had been (and continue to be) in effect since the night of August 4, adversely affected the right to know of residents of the Kashmir valley.

According to the Press Council Act, 1978, the primary purpose of the PCI is “to preserve the freedom of the press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.” Yet, the purpose of the PCI’s application, evidently filed without the knowledge of the entire Council, let alone discussed or approved by it, appeared to be to counter Bhasin’s petition. It not only misrepresented the petition in both spirit and substance but, by introducing terms like “morality, social and national interests” and “the integrity and sovereignty of the nation,” clearly suggested that “the national interest” was paramount in the situation prevailing in Kashmir after the “abrogation of the most contentious provision of the Constitution of India.” It is worth noting that a key function of the PCI is “to keep under review any development likely to restrict supply and dissemination of news of public interest and importance.”

In the face of all the criticism, the Council appeared to take a step back through a letter stating that its limited plea before the Supreme Court during the hearing of Bhasin’s petition on August 28 would state that “the Council stands for freedom of the press and does not approve of any sort of restriction on the media” and that a detailed reply would be filed after it receives a report from a sub-committee set up “to study the media scenario in Jammu and Kashmir.”

Subsequent protestations of the PCI Chairperson, Justice (retd) CK Prasad, claiming not to have supported curbs on media freedom in Kashmir were somewhat blunted by his continued insistence on pitting “individual right and national interest” against each other without clarifying what, in his opinion, constitutes national interest in this context. Curiously, the PCI’s new sub-committee will be the third to submit a report based on visits to Jammu and Kashmir since 2017; what happened to the earlier reports is a moot question.

The application to intervene in Bhasin’s writ petition is only a symptom of the disease that has afflicted the PCI for a while now and has prevented it from living up to its mandate as a statutory body charged with upholding the freedom, independence, standards and ethics of the press. Traditionally headed by a retired judge, it has typically focused on “adjudications” on complaints against and by the press. Responding to complaints is only one of the stated functions of press councils worldwide – the others being, as the Australian Press Council puts it, “promoting good standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest, and freedom of expression through the media.”

The PCI has hardly been heard from over the past several years when the Indian media has been facing major challenges from both internal and external sources.

It does not appear to have taken a public position on violence against journalists in the country – online and offline – even though 17 were killed in 2017-18 (48 since 1992) and many more were targets of murder attempts, physical attacks and threats, including incitement to murder and rape. The Council does not even maintain data on the targeting and killing of journalists. Interestingly, however, the Council publicly condemned the 2015 attack on the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo.

The PCI’s views on the large number of journalists laid off or otherwise “let go” in recent years, often in mass terminations and without notice, are also not available in the public sphere. Nor are its views on the mergers and acquisitions that have led to the current, unprecedented concentration of media ownership, although it is specifically mandated to “concern itself” with such developments and their effects on the independence of the press.

Nor has the Council weighed in on the “crisis of credibility” that has been practically endemic in the Indian media in recent times, mainly thanks to 24x7 television “news.” The sordid history of the PCI’s attempt to suppress its own 2010 report on “paid news” tells its own tale. It was only thanks to an order from the Central Information Commission that the full report was finally made public in 2011.

Is such an ostrich policy really necessary when, even according to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, “The Press Council Act empowers the Press Council to make observations in respect of conduct of any authority, including government, if considered necessary for performance of its functions under the Act”?

(The writer is a Bengaluru-based senior journalist, author and co-founder, Network of Women in Media, India)