Civil Liberties

Narendra Modi’s added. ‘This is what we expect in return

for the payment we make to them.’ ”
It is such illiteracy about the basics of

Directive to the Press a democracy governed by rule of law which

moulds the outlook. If you take ‘our’
money, you do as you are told. Ergo, there
is no room for editorial discretion in the
The print media, bar sections of the Gujarati press in Ahmedabad, news agencies or the press.
have done the nation proud by its objective coverage of the Gujarat The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Miami
carnage. So have the electronic media. Rattled by the bad press it Herald vs Tornillo 418 US 241 (1975) is
very relevant. Invoking a 1913 Florida
has been getting, the Narendra Modi government has asked three statute, Pat L Tornillo Jr, a candidate for
news agencies in Ahmedabad to put out positive stories to refurbish the state legislature, demanded that the
the government’s image and thereafter to act as informers on Miami Herald print his reply to an edi-
which newspapers print the planted features and which do not. torial criticising his record as leader of a
teachers’ union. Chief justice Burger wrote:
A G NOORANI There can be no doubting the facts and Compelling editors or publishers to publish
the impropriety of this venture. The infor- that which ‘reason’ tells them should not
be published is what is at issue in this case

I
t is a natural human reaction, one sup-
poses, to want to cover up one’s
wrongs. Only, in a democratic society
this escape is not always available to public
figures. The principle of accountability
comes into play. The people have a right to
know. Officials are under a duty to account.
The print media, bar sections of the
Gujarati press in Ahmedabad, have done
the nation proud by its objective coverage
of the Gujarat carnage. So have the elec-
tronic media. Both aroused the wrath of
Narendra Modi, the state’s chief minister,
who presided over the carnage.
In the fine tradition of the press, Basant
Rawat did a service by filling from
Ahmedabad a report in The Telegraph of
May 16 which revealed:
Rattled by the bad press it has been getting,
the Narendra Modi government has asked
three news agencies in Ahmedabad to re-
furbish its image by putting out positive
stories.
The agencies – PTI, UNI and the now-
defunct Hindustan Samachar which still
has a representative here – have been
directed to file at least five articles/fea-
tures every month to highlight the
government’s development activities.
The information department’s directive
has shocked the agencies. “This is unpre-
cedented. I do not think any state govern-
ment has ever issued directives like this.
I have worked in several state capitals but
never got such a letter from the informa-
tion department”, said a UNI official.
The letter he received yesterday said the
agency will have to release all press state-
ments ‘without fail’ issued by the state
government. They will also be required to
submit a list of press releases carried in
different newspapers.
mation department sent a written directive
in a letter which the UNI official received
on May 14. The government officials called
it ‘routine’, which testifies to their lack
of respect for the truth; for the UNI official
said it was ‘unprecedented’. Note the
precision – the news agencies are asked
to file “at least five articles/features every
month”; that is at least once a week. They
are required thereafter to act as informers
on which papers printed the planted fea-
tures and which consigned them to the
waste-paper basket. The implication, is
plain: those who comply will be rewarded
with government ads and other favours,
others will be punished.
What an official of the state govern-
ment’s information department claimed is
shocking. The Press Council should take
notice of it. “It was just a routine letter
and the agencies had agreed to comply
with the conditions laid down by us.” The
agencies denied this. The agencies, how-
ever, said this was the first time they had
received such a directive. “[The govern-
ment] has no business dictating to us what
stories are to be carried”, said a journalist
working with PTI.
The information official explained that
the government pays the agencies for their
services. “If the government wants certain
stories to be released and the details about
the articles they have released, I do not think
there is anything wrong. It is just a mutual
agreement that suits us”, the official
explained. “He said the government has
no intention of curbing the freedom of the
press. As it is, the agencies have been putting
out on the wires almost all press releases
issued by the information department, he
... Even if a newspaper would face no
additional costs to comply with a compul-
sory access law and would not be forced
to forgo publication of news or opinion by
the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute
fails to clear the barriers of the first amend-
ment because of its intrusion into the func-
tion of editors. A newspaper is more than
a passive receptacle or conduit of news,
comment, and advertising. The choice of
material to go into a newspaper, and the
decisions made as to limitation on the size
of the paper, and content, and treatment of
public officials – whether fair or unfair –
constitute the exercise of editorial control
and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated
how governmental regulation of this cru-
cial process can be exercised consistent
with first amendment guarantees of a free
press as they have evolved to this time.
Thus even the fundamental rule of fairplay
– the right to reply – cannot be secured
through legislation. Still less can a law force
news agencies to circulate government-
sponsored stories. But, of course, there is
no law which ordains that. It was done
simply by an executive fiat. The sole sanc-
tion behind the order is the power over the
public purse that vests in the government
of the day. The Supreme Court has ruled
that public money can be spent only for
‘public purposes’. Government ads which
boast of its achievements, illustrated with
photographs of the high and mighty, are
themselves open to challenge as colourable
use of public money for partisan ends.
In Narendra Modi’s case there is not
even a pretence of ‘public purpose’. The
government’s letter is open to challenge
in the high court and to censure by the
Press Council. EPW

Economic and Political Weekly June 1, 2002 2111