Goa will probably become the second State in India to enact a law to protect journalists from being attacked after Maharashtra became the first State to pass such a law when President Ram Nath Kovind signed the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Bill, 2017. The Maharashtra law, which formed the template for the Goa law, has just nine sections, which are imprecise. This is why the Goa law will need to be amended with the passage of time to make it more stringent.
The Goa Union of Journalists (GUJ) took the lead to approach Chief Minister Pramod Sawant after Maharashtra enacted the law to protect journalists in 2019. The GUJ president said the new law will be passed in the ensuing monsoon session of the Goa legislative assembly. If it really does come into effect, this newspaper’s intrepid journos will get a booster dose to expose corrupt ministers. Without exaggeration, Herald is arguably the only newspaper in Goa known for its hard-core investigative reports.
The same Devendra Fadnavis, who campaigned in Goa during February for the BJP, enacted this new law to protect journalists in Maharashtra from attacks. Before its ignoble collapse, the Janata Party, of which the BJP in its previous avatar known as the Bharatiya Jana Sangh was a component, repealed the draconian anti-media laws passed by Indira Gandhi on February 11, 1976. These were: The Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matters Act, 1976; the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Repeal Act, 1976; and the Press Council (Repeal) Act, 1976.
The PCI (Repeal) Act, 1976 killed and buried the Press Council of India (PCI) which was charged with protecting press freedom when ironically, it could never protect itself. It was revived under the Janata Party regime but how far the PCI has succeeded in protecting press freedom when it could not protect itself is itself debatable.
Without doubt, the PCI has conducted innumerable studies after it was revived with some stalwarts like the late Supreme Court judge, P B Sawant, coming down very heavily on certain newspaper barons for emasculating their journalists. But Justice Sawant’s judgments were blacked out by all the newspapers en bloc. Before he expired, he filed a Rs 100 crore defamation suit against a reputed media house for defamation.
Returning to Goa, Herald carried front page stories exposing the nexus between politicians and the police because law and order figures exclusively on the state list in the Constitution. Exclusive news reports alleged the PIs of certain police stations along the beaches did not stop shack owners from playing loud music well past midnight. Some of these constables gobble free snacks and accept free drinks from certain shack owners to turn a blind eye on minor transgressions of the law.
The more serious transgressions take place when ministers who invest crores of rupees in some of these shacks, phone the local police to direct them to allow the loud music to continue well past the curfew. A former chief minister was known to be part of the drug mafia with his son’s name being bandied about in the rape-and-murder in 2008 of a British teenager. A judge of the children’s court acquitted her alleged murderers but the high court convicted one of them in appeal. This is why Goa has gained notoriety for being an unsafe tourist spot for white women.
A poll agent of a powerful minister who allegedly assaulted a police constable may have had the case against him diluted when the minister visited the police station to ensure that no action was taken against his poll agent. The video of a senior police officer obstructing the interrogation of this poll agent by a lowly police officer was widely circulated. And so, if poll agents of ministers get away, there is no reason why those who assault reporters should also not be allowed to get away.
This is why when the Herald’s intrepid reporter with her colleague was investigating the incessant noise created by a bar at Anjuna, the duo were threatened with dire consequences by the owners of the bar at Anjuna. Undeterred, the reporter succeeded in ensuring that FIRs were filed against those who were threatening them.
Reporters discharge a public duty by investigating corruption and transgressions of the law but unlike lowly police constables or sarpanchas or even a secretary of the village panchayat who is appointed by the government, the reporter is not a public servant under section 21 of the obsolete Indian Penal Code of 1860. This will need an amendment by Parliament but Goa could have taken the lead by incorporating a provision in the soon-to-be-passed law declaring reporters are public servants.
With few exceptions, reporters are not in the direct pay of the government nor do their investigative reports comprise primary evidence in any court of law unless the reporters voluntarily swear an affidavit in court declaring what he published was true and correct. He then has to submit himself to a cross-examination.
Another defect in the soon-to-be passed law is that reporters are not protected from being forced to disclose their sources of information which flouts journalistic norms. Those who attack journalists may be punished with a maximum of three years in jail or a fine which may extend to Rs 50,000, equally applicable to journos who make false complaints, going by the Maharashtra law.
When goons attack our journos, democracy turns into an autocracy.
(Dr Olav Albuquerque holds a Ph.D in media law and is a senior
journalist-cum-advocate of the Bombay high court.)
