The statement was issued by concerned media persons against the Press Council of India's intervention in the petition filed by Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin, seeking relaxation in the restrictions put on media houses and journalists in Jammu and Kashmir.
We, the undersigned individual journalists and media organisations, express our grave concern at the decision of the Press Council of India to intervene in the petition filed by Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin. The Press Council of India’s petition has sought to be heard in the matter and does not unequivocally seek to protect press freedom.
Instead, it conflates the issues raised by the Petition on the ‘rights of the media/journalists for free and fair reporting on the one hand and national interest of integrity and sovereignty on the other’ and seeks to assist the Court on the issue of the ‘freedom of the Press as well as in the national interest’.
The Press Council of India’s wording of the intervention petition in this manner is deplorable, completely indefensible and strikes a severe blow against the struggle of journalists from Kashmir to be able to report freely on the effect of the abrogation of Art 370 on August 5, 2019. Since then, the entire region has been under the most extraordinary clampdown of communication, newspapers have not been printed or distributed freely and journalists have not been able to gather news, much less disseminate it. Their movements have been hampered and their mobility severely restricted.
The Internet shutdown has been total and only select government officers have had recourse to landlines or private satellite phones. Ordinary citizens have not been able to get any information about the plight of their family members, even of the death of loved ones! Medical help for citizens have been severely hampered and students are unable to get information on course and job applications.
The government continues to claim that Kashmir is peaceful and calm. Yet, independent media organisations have recorded evidence of protests and expressions of anger by citizens but in the face of the ban on the Internet, the very dissemination of this news is threatened.
There has been a global outcry against this absolute clampdown. Journalists’ organisations in India, have demanded that communication be restored. The Editors Guild of India has termed the lockdown in communication as ‘draconian for the vibrant local media that are the first eyes and ears on the ground.’
In this situation, it is the responsibility of an august, statutory body like the Press Council of India to step forward and fulfill its duty to media freedom. In 1966, the Press Council was set up as a statutory body under an act of Parliament with ‘the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India’. It is mandated with acting as a self-regulatory body set up as ‘a watchdog of the press, for the press and by the press’. It is expected to adjudicate on issues of ethics and on freedom of the press.
The current Chairperson of the Press Council of India, Justice C. K. Prasad, said in an address on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee Programme of the National Human Rights Commission of India held on September 5, 2018 at IIMC, Delhi, that the ‘media is the eyes and ears of any democratic society and its existence is vital to the smooth functioning of democracy. It guards the public interest and acts as voice of the voiceless’.
The present intervention by the Press Council of India is in sharp contrast to its report released on 9 October, 2017 after its visit to J&K, where it states, “The committee is really concerned about the stoppage of internet and mobile services in the State. In this age, no media can work without these supports. The policy of curbs on internet and mobile services has to be reviewed urgently.” The Press Council had also recommended increase in DAVP and government advertisements to increase sustainability of newspapers, and stated, “Journalists, too, are doing public service during any coverage and, therefore, their accreditation or Press Cards should be duly honoured during curfew or restrictions.
By this intervention in the petition filed by Ms Bhasin, it appears that the Press Council of India is abrogating its Constitutional responsibility towards standing firmly and fearlessly for the freedom of the press and the right of the media to ‘act as the voice of the voiceless’. It flies in the face of the role of the Press Council of India as a statutory body to safeguard the rights of the media to fulfill its responsibility freely, without fear or favour. That is in the true national interest, irrespective of the interests of the government of the day.
We urge the Press Council of India to immediately intervene in favour of the petition filed by Ms Bhasin to rescind the ban on communication forthwith. Anything short of this will be a travesty of media freedom. "
Signatories to the statement are:
1. Ajith Pillai, Journalist, Delhi
2. Akhileshwari Ramagoud
3. Ammu Joseph, Bangalore
4. Aniruddha Bahl
5. Anjali Mody, New Delhi
6. Anjuman Ara Begum, Guwahati
7. Anumeha Yadav, Delhi
8. Anuradha Sharma, Siliguri (Darjeeling)
9. Akshita Nagpal
10. Aunohita Mojumdar, Editor, Himal Southasian
11. Avantika Mehta, New Delhi
12. Binita Parikh Ahmedabad
13. C.G. Manjula, Bangalore
14. Chitra Ahanthem, Imphal
15. Chitrangada Chaudhary, Delhi
16. Deepanjana Pal
17. Dhanya Rajendran, Bangalore
18. Free Speech Collective
19. Geeta Seshu, Mumbai
20. Geetartha Pathak. Vice President, Indian Journalists Union, Guwahati and former member, Press Council of India
21. Gita Aravamudan, Bangalore
22. Haima Deshpande, Thane
23. Iftikhar Gilani
24. Jairaj Singh
25. Jayaditya Gupta
26. Jyoti Punwani, Journalist, Mumbai
27. Kala Kanthan, Bangalore
28. Kalpana Sharma, Mumbai
29. Kamayani Mahabal, Mumbai
30. Laxmi Murthy, Bangalore
31. Linda Chhakchhuak, Independent Journalist, Shillong
32. M.D Riti, Bangalore
33. Mahesh Rajput, Journalist, Chandigarh
34. Malini Subramaniam, Hyderabad
35. Manisha Pande
36. Meena Menon, Journalist, Mumbai
37. Melanie P Kumar, Bangalore
38. MJ Pandey, Journalist, Mumbai
39. Natasha Badhwar
40. Neha Dixit, Delhi
41. Neeta Kolhatkar, Mumbai
42. Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI)
43. Neelam Jena, Delhi
44. Niloufer Venkatraman
45. Nilanjana Bhowmick Independent Journalist New Delhi
46. Nupur Basu, Bengaluru
47. Padma Priya, Hyderabad
48. Padmaja Shaw, Hyderabad
49. Padmalatha Ravi, Bangalore
50. Padma Prakash, Mumbai
51. Pamela Philipose, Journalist, Delhi
52. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, former member, Press Council of India
53. Parth MN, Mumbai
54. Paroma Mukherjee
55. Poornima Joshi, Political Editor, Hindu Businessline
56. Prachi Pinglay, Bangalore
57. Prema Viswanathan, Bangalore
58. Preethi Nagaraj, Mysuru
59. Preeti Mehra, Journalist, Delhi
60. Priya Ramani, Bangalore
61. Pushpa Achanta, Bangalore
62. Radhika Ramaseshan, New Delhi
63. Rajashree Dasgupta, Kolkata
64. Rehmat Merchant, Bangalore
65. Rema Nagarajan
66. Revathi Siva Kumar, Bangalore
67. Revati Laul, New Delhi
68. Rituparna Chatterjiee
69. Rohit Khanna, journalist
70. Rohini Mohan, Bangalore
71. Rosamma Thomas, Pune
72. Sevanti Ninan, New Delhi
73. S.N. Sinha, former member, Press Council and Convenor of PCI report on Media of J&K, 2017
74. S.Teresa, Chennai
75. Sabarinath, Jaipur
76. Sabita Lahkar, Independent Journalist, Guwahati
77. Samar Halarnkar
78. Sameera Khan, Mumbai
79. Samhita Barooah, Meghalaya
80. Samrat Chakrabarti
81. Samrat Choudhury
82. Sandhya Ravishankar, Chennai
83. Shahina KK, Thiruvananthapuram
84. Sharda Ugra, Bangalore
85. Shobha SV, Independent media professional, Bangalore
86. Sohini.C, Kolkata
87. Sonal Kellog
88. Thingnam Anjulika Samom, Imphal
89. Tongam Rina, Journalist, Itanagar
90. UNI Employees Union, Chandigarh
91. Usha Rai, Delhi
92. Valay Singh
93. Venu Arora, New Delhi
94. Vivek Mukherji, New Delhi
