Puri's case: The writer seems provoked by the decision of the Press Council in the two matters arising from her own write-ups. The first write-up, ``Cheats meet the PM over tea'' was against one Rajender Puri and his wife whom she had described as ``notorious cheats''. The Council observed: ``...Had those cases pending in courts resulted in conviction of the complainants .... the respondents would have been justified in calling the convicts as cheats. But this was not the case... This is however a case of technical infraction of journalistic ethics where the respondents' mistaken zeal to serve public interest outran their discretion.'' The writer says that she was reprimanded for unfairness. This is factually incorrect.

S.S.Gill's case: The second matter arises from the complaint of Gill, the then CEO, Prasar Bharati, who objected to an allegedly scurrilous and defamatory reporting in the column ``Inside Track'' under the caption ``Partisan Prasar Bharati.''

The author raised grievance about non-appearance of the complainant before the committee. The committee observed: ``... appearance before the committee of the parties was not compulsory. The matter is decided on the basis of the material placed before the committee when the parties do not appear.''

The further grievance of the author is that Gill was not held responsible though he was the head of the establishment and the Council's exacting yardstick on inference would freeze out most criticism of public persons.

This is being presumptuous. There is no irrebuttable presumption to this effect. That is why the Council observed: ``....Newspapers are not supposed to pass on or elevate or project conjecture, speculation or comment as a statement of fact. The respondent hasarrived at conclusion which is not at all deducible from the facts and circumstances available to her and has asserted it as a fact which is bound to mislead the readers. She has also reiterated it as a fact in her subsequent write-up.''

About the composition of the Council, the author has named certain publications represented by the members of the Council which according to her have never been heard of. Further, the representatives of these publications are alleged to be not true representatives of Indian press corps. This is totally a wrong perception of the composition of the Council under the Act. The Council comprises the chairman, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, five members of Parliament as representatives of the people, three from the field of education and science, law and literature and culture and one from news agencies. Six members are owners' representatives, six are editors of newspapers and the remaining seven are working journalists. They have been nominated by their respectiveassociations. The members of the Council represent various categories and constituencies and not individual newspapers with which they are connected.

Of the conduct of the Council members, the Council lays emphasis on professional ethics which are important for inner discipline. As the Council enforces ethics for those engaged in journalism, the author has maliciously chosen to attack the chairman and the members of the Council for their alleged unethical conduct. It is suggested that the chairman is a good friend of Gill having been on the three-member committee which appointed the CEO and therefore he should have abstained from the proceedings. The selected candidate does not become a friend of the selector. And in this case the Committee had two other members, one of them being the Vice-President of India. Kapoor has a strange logic indeed.

The Press Council is not above criticism. But any attempt at either ignoring the code of ethics evolved by the Council or downgrading the Council by the media wouldbe at its own peril.

The writer is Secretary, Press Council of India