A proposed press legislation** will outlaw the practice of “paying” news outlets for coverage.
The new draft defines “paid news” and creates a Press Registrar-General (and appellate commissariat) who can cancel a newspaper’s publishing license if it is found to have taken money in return for coverage.
“Paid news” has been defined as, “publishing any news or analysis in the publication for a price in cash or kind as consideration.” I assume that encompasses private equity and debt too.Now, no one can argue on behalf of paid news.
But proving that a politician or an industrialist paid a news organization for coverage can’t be based on mere hearsay or the application of mind by a babu.
Particularly because as the matter gets escalated and the media organization is found to have published paid news by the Press Council of India “or any other quasi-judicial/judicial authority,” its license to publish will be revoked.
To this effect, the proposed law also mandates that publications declare advertisement revenues when asked to do so by the Government.
Most media organizations are privately held. Why, also, should they disclose their financial detailsIJ
The bill will force media owners and editors to spend more time running around the Press Registrar-General, justifying their accounts rather than serving their principal mandate of keeping Government and the political class in check.
The cancellation-of-license provision makes the bill one of the most regressive onslaughts by the political class on freedoms of the press and rights of citizens to get information from whichever source they prefer.
Wouldn’t most of us rather trust our own collective intelligence in eschewing paid writing than going with a Government-appointeeIJ
Is the plan to grant broad powers to the Government to shut down inconvenient publicationsIJ If not, we still have on our plate remedies that are worse than the disease they aim to cure.
It is instructive, therefore, that within three days of the draft PRB Bill being put up for comment, Finance Minister P Chidambaram Tuesday expounded on mens rea (state of mind).
The FM bemoaned that there are a number of cases where investigating agencies like CBI, and other authorities like the CAG, “have overstepped their limits and attempted to convert bona fide executive decisions into either crimes or abuse of authority.” IJIJ
“Ordinarily, a financial crime would arise from either unlawful gain or unlawful loss and, in such cases, the law could either stipulate proof of the state of mind or presume a state of mind to cause the unlawful gain or the unlawful loss.”
“So, in financial crimes, mens rea or the state of mind must be invariably proved or presumed from certain facts.”
“This,” in Chidambaram’s view, “is the correct approach to financial crimes.”
“There are cases where the CBI – and sometimes the courts – have interpreted provisions of law to exclude mens rea. A frequently cited example is section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. That provision reads as follows:IJIJ ‘If he, while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest..’”
“A close reading of (even) the above provision does not,” in the FM’s view, “rule out mens rea.”
Chidambaram therefore argued that “the words ‘without public interest’ imply that the offender must have committed the act although he knew that there was no public interest. In a case arising under this section, if the accused is able to show that there was indeed some public interest, the offence would not be made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal.”
Shouldn’t the FM share this prudent approach to financial crimes with his colleague Manish Tewari, the minister for information and broadcasting, piloting the new press lawIJ Shouldn’t the test of mens rea (or state of mind) be applied on paid newsIJ If that’s agreed, howIJ
xxxx
** The British had left us with the Press and Registration of Books Act (PRB Act), 1867, aimed to create a system for keeping a record of publications through regulation of printing presses and newspapers. A number of minor amendments in the original Act were made to keep regulation in step with the evolution of business.
Claiming to make the 134-year-old PRB Act relevant in the present scenario of the print media (and books), the UPA government floated the Press and Registration of Books and Publication (PRBP) Bill 2011 in Parliament on November 16, 2011. This was referred to the Standing Committee of Information Technology for examination, which submitted its report to on November 12 last.
Revisions preferred by the government have been uploaded on the website of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (home page – What’s new) on November 8. Suggestions are expected over the next 10 days after which it will be a virtual fait accompli.
(The columnist is CEO & Co-Founder, India Startegy Group, Hammurabi & Solomon Consulting. Tweets@therohitbansal)