Media,Law & the case of Roys

The editorial “The Morning Knock”  in The Indian Express (June 7, 2017) on the CBI raid NDTV founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy was disappointing. The newspaper failed to make a fair assessment. The editorial raises the issue of media-transparency – the “why” behind the editorial – and the need for accountability on the part of the media itself.

The editorial, correctly stated that the “media house is not expected to be above the law” but proceeded to invoke the epithet “caged parrot” for the CBI and draw upon the “relics of a dark time to which no one wishes to return”. The illustrations given would have been justified if the facts of the case in question showed that the raid was unwarranted. The newspaper, however, chose not to commit to this position yet suggested the possibility of raid being of questionable intent! Any search for information which confirms one’s preconceptions is nothing but cherry picking – using information which confirms one point of view while ignoring all data which can contradict it. And having itself acknowledged that “ownership of most media today is defined by vertiginous web of cross-holdings involving corporates and entities for whom media is not primary business” the newspaper would have done to maintain the difference between the interest of the media from the commercial interests of the media owners which it chose not to do.

The editorial raised what it called “disquieting questions”. The CBI, it said, stepped in seven years “after the event”! “Event” is a value neutral description and is inapposite considering the subject of the editorial. It is interesting to note the absence of any word (criminal?) modifying the noun “event” and attributing to it any quality  (crime?) as to justify initiation of an investigation. If it was an “event” seven years is a long period of time for it to be worthy of interest or attention but if the event was a “crime” the passage of seven years is irrelevant and the more disquieting issue is its being hidden for the period.

The editorial next regrets that “there is no original investigation”. Investigation, however, follows and does not precede registration of information concerning commission of an offence. And if “original investigation” is the key how can the newspaper without even touching the facts of the case leave aside investigating the same call the initiation of the process “disquieting”?

ICICI, the editorial says, has not complained and the loss is described as a “private loss” to be decided by the “law of torts” with which the government is not expected to “weigh in”. Firstly, the concept of locus standi is alien to criminal law and anyone can put the criminal law into motion unless contra-indicated by the statute. Secondly even private banks perform public duties and their officials can be prosecuted for corruption or otherwise abusing their authority. Thirdly, even torts can be simultaneously be criminal wrongs and there is no bar to proceed under the latter. In fact as banks have the power to create money, shape economy and manipulate investments the need for accountability and control is higher in “events” involving banks which consequently cannot be called “private wrongs” to individual victims (to which law of torts applies) but “public wrongs” which need to be prosecuted on behalf of the society and placed clearly in the realm of criminal law.

The editorial contradicts itself by saying, “disputes concerning defaults bigger by order of magnitude are being heard by courts and the government has made no attempt to short circuit the process by letting the CBI loose.” The grievance thus shifts from an “event” to a “private wrong” to eventually a wrong which many others have also committed a plaintive attempt following this change in perception at seeking parity in illegality and perpetuation of criminal order – something which does not behove a newspaper which proudly proclaims “journalism of courage”. The newspaper should be more concerned about those left out rather than those reined in. Besides how can the newspaper complain simultaneously about “letting CBI loose” AND its being a “caged parrot”? Did the newspaper want the CBI to be caged in rather than being free to investigate the wrong. Does this not entail conviction being replaced by preferences and position on principles shifting with the personalities involved creating the very crisis of credibility for the newspaper which it apprehends is being faced by the CBI? Besides “disputes” of “bigger defaults” are weasel words stripped of specifics which can be manipulated according to one’s biases and written without threat of contradiction with no means of knowing which disputes and defaults the editorial had in mind to test whether its opinion was in fact correct.

Any tampering of information by the government is wrong. However a correct portrayal of it by the media is as equally mandated. And both need to be wary of giving it a spin manipulate opinion rather than inform it and allow it to reach its own conclusions about the issues which confront it. The case of the Roys is a test not only of the “commitment” of the CBI to investigate fairly as the editorial rightly opines but its reporting by the media is equally a test of its commitment to transparency and reliability of information purveyed by it.

2 thoughts on “Media,Law & the case of Roys

  1. Good evening Sir,

    If I’m not wrong, I remember couple of months ago the NDTV promoter company had to explain to IT about the overseas investments in it. What a funny explanation was given by it then! The company claimed to have sold dreams! That was the appropriate time for raids by CBI, IT etc…..But the authorities went in deep slumber since then.

    It is well known that Nidhi Rajdan had unceremoniously asked BJP spokesperson to leave her show and it’s seen as counterblast of that incident. That’s why several media groups are more than willing to play devil’s advocate and sniffing much more than what’s not there in the whole issue. Media houses are seeing the CBI raid on Roy as an attack on the “freedom of PRESS”.

    For the past several years it’s been seen that media has blown to wind the ethics of reporting. Openly reporters/journalists are spewing venom against one religion or the other religion thus leaving no stone unturned to incite violence or riots in the country. Hence, the country has seen a series of riots from UP, West Bengal to Kerala etc. One community is identified as victim of riots by another caste and this type of irresponsible reporting causes riots, spread hatred amongst various sections of the society. The so called media has created atmosphere of hatred, animosity and suspicion throughout the country.

    All such types of reports are motivated by some foreign forces as media in India has got 100 percent FDI and nobody questioned the media houses about their funding. Freedom of press can’t mean that the companies running media houses can’t be questioned about their illegal sources of funding. Indian media has been enjoying absolute FREEDOM OF PRESS without even being given any special provisions in the constitution or law. Simultaneously, we must not forget that absolute FREEDOM means absolute corruption too. No media house is above law. Under the garb of running media so many corporate houses have been doing other nefarious, commercial and illegal activities. We know it very well how Sahara group had been enjoying political patronage due to its fake cover of media. Several fraudsters were caught running CHOTA MOTA AKHBAR to terrorize government agencies.

    The separatists are seen and openly defending Pakistan and tarnishing the image of India in the cozy studios of anti national news channels regularly as permanent fixtures. Now it is found that the separatists had got around 1500 crores from Pakistan. It’s high time to investigate the sources of funding to these news channels raising anti India rant.

    I think the raids on NDTV were too late and too little action against a monster fed with public exchequer for long in the shape of government advertisements.

    As usual, again a great piece of writing sir from legal hawk who is himself an authority on criminal jurisprudence.

  2. Media houses with single point agenda against one citizen from 2002 to 2014, have degenerated themselves to indulge in illegalities with impunity. Even any company with shareholdings exceeding 51 percent by Indian citizens is entitled to fundamental rights [see STC case 1963]. Therefore every company has got fundamental duty to behave like ordinary citizen by paying taxes, getting loans according to standard operating procedures, and not to commit defaults. NDTV has got right to demonstrate its innocence in trial, but why public posturing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s