Skip to main content

Rajdeep Sardesai - Freedom of Press or fake personality - can a light of Media curtain himself from darkness!

A lot of journalists give teachings on morality. They preach transparency in public life. They hound politicians & public figures on any issue. But what happens when such a thing happens in their life? Why does the MSM remain quite at that moment? Here is an article which was published in a website named OpIndia.com which exposes the hypocrisy of Indian Media:
A few days ago I stumbled upon some interesting facts about Rajdeep Sardesai. I was routinely reading a law journal that reports judgments of Supreme Court & High Courts. What I read left me in disbelief. It was a judgment of Supreme Court related to Rajdeep Sardesai. The interesting facts emerging out of the said judgment are summarised as under –
Rajdeep Sardesai has never publicly revealed the fact that he is an accused before court of law. Mr. Rajiv Trivedi, a high ranking IPS Officer has filed a criminal case for defamation against Rajdeep Sardesai & several others in Hyderabad.
The criminal case pertains to an alleged defamatory news run by Rajdeep Sardesai led CNN-IBN in the year 2007 with regard to encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh. In 2007 Rajdeep Sardesai led CNN-IBN ran a story accusing IPS Rajiv Trivedi of playing a role in the events leading to Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter. In the said criminal case Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad passed an order summoning Rajdeep Sardesai & others to face the prosecution as accused.
Rajdeep Sardesai challenged the said summoning order by filing a petition in AP High Court. Vide said petition Rajdeep prayed that the summoning order of the lower court be set aside & the criminal case against him be quashed. However AP High Court found prima facie merit in the criminal case & accordingly dismissed Rajdeep’s challenge. Thus the High Court put it’s seal of approval on the summoning order against Rajdeep which requires him to face prosecution as accused.
Rajdeep carried the challenge further before the Supreme Court & sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him. By an elaborate judgmentdated 14th May 2015 the Supreme Court also dismissed Rajdeep’s petition. Thus order summoning Rajdeep to face prosecution as accused became final after receiving approval from the Apex Court of land.
It was argued by Rajdeep’s counsel in Supreme Court that criminal proceedings will hamper the “freedom of press”. Supreme Court rejected the said argument by observing that individual reputation is equally important & cannot be trampled in the name of freedom of press.
However in a last ditch attempt Rajdeep Sardesai has filed a fresh petition in SC contending that provision making defamation a criminal act be done away with. Therein the SC has stayed the proceeding in the court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. His petition has been tagged with the petitons of Dr. Swamy, Kejriwal & others seeking decriminalisation of defamation. But it must be remembered that the order summoning Rajdeep as an accused has become final on merits. His latest petition is based only on the larger & generalised argument that defamation be decriminalised. That argument is akin to allegedly committing an act which is a crime under existing laws & then seeking decriminalisation of the act.
The lack of MSM coverage in this case sheds light on media hypocrisy. In the case of others, media does not even wait for any judicial order or legal action. A mere allegation is enough to hound politicians & public figures. Chants for resignation grow loud. But when one of their own is found in such situation media goes mute.
Why didn’t media apply same yardstick to Rajdeep Sardesai? Why wasn’t Rajdeep chased by cameras? Why weren’t tough questions asked to Rajdeep? Will anyone even flirt with the idea of Rajdeep’s resignation? What does India Today group have to say on this? Were they in the know of things? If yes, why did they keep mum? If no, what is their reaction now?
These are tough questions no one is willing to ask Rajdeep. And now that they have been asked here, Rajdeep will not reply.
Credits: Opindia.com

What do you think about this? Give us your Valuable Views and Opinions in the Comment Box below:

Comments

5 comments

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of ...
4 comments
Read more

MCS ACT: Encroachment /usage of Common Area by Flat Owners - Highlights of bye laws and the role of MC/General Body

The Managing Committee has to read the bye laws in harmony and adopt a standard process as approved by the General Body   Almost Every Society has conflicts or even fist fights on usage of common areas, especially the parking, the passage outside the flats and other areas meant for east of movement and common utility. As a Building lay out, and common areas differ accordingly to the size/class of buildings and also the category of flats , it is essential to review the relevant bye laws and formulate a policy with uniform norms and permitting fair use. What is permissible and fair use again depends on the unique size and design of a building, it is imperative to evolve a robust policy post deliberations at a General Body of Members.  Bye Law No 165. Penalties for breaches  Bye Law No 165(a)  The meeting of the General Body of the Society may prescribe penalties for different breaches of the Bye-laws of the Society. The Secretary of the Society, under instruct...
1 comment
Read more

PoSH Act: ICC of the Employer of the Complainant (Victim) is also empowered to conduct enquiry -Path-breaking Ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

 KEY POINTS BY LAWSHASTRA - FULL JUDGEMENT APPENDED BELOW   This path-breaking judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has well enunciated the objectives of the VISHAKA Guidelines and the PoSH Act, while spelling out the jurisdictional aspects of the “Employer” Crystal clear.  Precisely, the jurisdictional challenge by the Appellant in the present case, inter alia relates to whether the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”) against the Appellant who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time.  Key Points for reference   PoSH Act. (extracts) Section 2(a)  “(a) “aggrieved woman” means -  in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or n...
Post a Comment
Read more