Indian Muslim Leading Newspaper, New from India, Islam, World
32 pages, Twice a month. Subscribe Now.  (RNI DELENG/2000/930; ISSN 0972-3366)


 
Since Jan 2000

Cartoons .  Special Reports . National  . Issues . Community News Letters to the Editor  . Matrimonials . Latest Indian Muslim Statements . Book Store ++

Home 
Search
Subscribe Online
Archives

About Us
Cartoons

Online Book Store  
E-Greetings

Jobs @ MG

Advertise on MG
Our Team
Contact Us

Muslim Matrimonials
Our Advertisers

Add to your RSS reader - Indian Muslim Islamic News online media web site

  Lastest Indian Muslim 
Statements & 
Press Release
s
Google
Web (WWW) OR  
only MG

  q
Tell me when the next issue comes online:

Unsubscribe

 

 

  q

__________________

If you haven't seen the print edition,
you've 

missed it ALL

send me the print edition
__________________

  q

INTERVIEW: Rajeev Dhawan
'POTO will abuse a journalist's pride and professionalism' 

Eminent lawyer Rajeev Dhawan tells Aman Singh of tehelka.com that the new Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) is both abusive and dictatorial in its attempt to muzzle the press. He says that the press is being threatened in a way that might lead to extreme reactions and absolutist behaviour
Is POTO violating the Constitutional guarantee of the right to freedom of expression?
The question of Constitutionality and desirability are different. If an Act is Constitutionally correct, it doesn't mean that it is as desirable, too. Even the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and Justice Jeevan Reddy in the 73rd report had said that what might be Constitutionally acceptable is not necessarily equally desirable. The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) had skimmed over this, too. So that is the fine line that divides the freedom of expression, the Constitution and the government's (new) ordinance.

What are the press laws that are being infringed by the POTO?
It is not only infringing but also violating the disclosure provision, the confession provision and the bail provision. It is infringing blatantly on the forfeiture provision. The most important fact is that if they (the government) simply wanted to term terrorism as an offence, they could have done so by making it or adding it as an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Why are they getting into all this at all when this process could have solved the basic motive?
Violence is a procedure and labelling it an offence should be the remedy. Not indicting journalists.
Given that a journalist is basically doing his or her job, how necessary do you think is it to disclose the source of information?
The basic point is that when the motive can be solved by simply adding terrorism to the IPC, why is the Central government taking such extreme steps? An ordinary law would have done, as against all these special Acts. It's wrong to expect every journalist writing a story to give the source of information alongside and prove that what he or she is saying is true. They anyway authenticate their stories through the various available mediums. Why should they have to answer to the authorities on this issue at all? I think it is wrong, abusive and draconian.
I feel that professionals would feel abused by this Act as their stories are based on the belief that whatever they write is authentic and proven, not fabricated. It is also true that some of these people have sources that give them the information but do not want to be named. In such a case, the authorities would be abusing a journalist's pride and professionalism. No one should be forced to shell out their sources, as this would be blatant, dictatorial rule and abuse of a profession built on truth, reality and facts.

Do you think the government is going too far this time, with POTO coming as it does long after Feroze Gandhi's Working Journalists' Act?
That is a very broad question. I have already said that it is a draconian Act and feel that the profession of journalism would be highly abused by it if it is enacted and followed. I mean, going to jail for 10 years for not giving out the name of the source one's story is based on? Ridiculous.

How far is Arundhati Roy's claim violated by the POTO that we have the right to criticise judicial pronouncements?
I don't think it is violated at all. People can still criticise judicial decisions. But, yes, if this Ordinance becomes an Act, it would change the way they would be permitted to criticise. It would change radically, in fact. This would start resembling a dictatorship as far as freedom of press is concerned. I am not surprised that you journalists are up in the arms about this Act.
q

 

 

Subscribe Now: MG needs your support

Get Books from India at cheap attractive ratesArabic English High Quality translation

Help Relief, Welfare, development work in India - Zakat

Read books on Indian Muslim Islamic topics only on MG bookstore !


Subscribe 2 MG print edition | Muslim Educational Loan AidContact Us | Muslim Baby Names | OutreachIndia | Suggestions | Muslim  Islamic greeting cards

Bookmark The Milli Gazette

Privacy PolicyDisclaimer  Copyright 2000-Present  Publishers: Pharos Media & Publishing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India