Journalists in this Naxal-prone state are often targeted by the mafia and extremists. While the state has appointed a retired Supreme Court judge to draft an Act to protect them, it has been in the making for two years. While the draft was inspired by a PUCL bill, ironically, it suggests an umbrella body with a retired judge, DGP and SP to ensure the safety of journalists. That is strange when most complaints are of police atrocities or false FIRs, writes NEEERAJ MISHRA.
——–
HOW much time should drafting a protection act for any specific group of citizens take? Ideally, groups in need of protection–journalists, artists or even academics—would want the Act to be delivered as soon as possible so that the State can get on with the business of protecting them. However, the Journalist Protection Act of Chhattisgarh has been in the making for close to two years. But those behind it have delivered nothing so far, barring a few commentaries, public discussions and a prototype.
Every now and then, Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel comes out with a statement about the draft Act nearing completion and how it will soon be enforced and every journalist in the state will feel safer. It had been his election promise, but since taking over in December 2018, he has not moved beyond appointing retired Justice Aftab Alam of the Supreme Court to draft the Act. The draft was submitted to Baghel in December last, but nothing has moved so far.
What is even more surprising is that several drafts and model Acts had already been presented to Baghel. But whatever has come out in the public domain so far of the Aftab Alam draft Act is nothing but a copy and amalgamation.
Justice Alam is heading the draft committee which works with full state patronage. He has been provided with an office and an assistant in Delhi and been working hard for close to two years to produce a draft which is essentially inspired by the PUCL draft bill it proposed in 2016. Maharashtra already has a journalist protection Act which, by the way, has not found much traction with journalists there. So why does Chhattisgarh want one is a moot question.
“The draft Act has been Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's election promise, but since taking over in December 2018, he has not moved beyond appointing retired Justice Aftab Alam of the Supreme Court to draft the Act. The draft was submitted to Baghel in December last, but nothing has moved so far.
PUCL's Chhattisgarh chapter had proposed a draft copy of the bill for the protection of journalists and human rights activists. The left-leaning organisation has a sympathiser in the Baghel cabinet, which has gone ahead and dropped the "Human Right Activists" part for obvious reasons. He has tried to incorporate as many other suggestions as possible.
The draft Act works on the premise that a protective umbrella body packed with a retired judge and director general of police (DGP) at the state level, and a superintendent of police (SP) and collector at the district level, will ensure the safety of journalists. Journalists usually need protection against state oppression, besides various mafia and extremists. So how will a committee of police officials help in sorting out their grievances if it is against the state itself?
“All committees will consist of journalists, but any committee which has a DGP or collector-level officer heading it is unlikely to investigate any complaint against the police force. Recent experience has shown that most complaints are of police atrocities or false FIRs.
The PUCL had suggested in its draft, which is available on the net, that anyone who writes/reports for any medium can be considered a journalist. This includes TV and web and one assumes also social media. The draft bill has expanded on that and detailed that anyone who has published five articles in the last six months or has been paid by any publisher in the past three months should be considered a journalist. This, by extension, would include freelancers and even hawkers.
While this has its benefits in left-wing extremist regions such as Bastar where reporting is a difficult task, journalists are not happy about such a classification as it does not differentiate between a professional journalist and those who happen to be related to the trade. The one concession the Chhattisgarh Act makes is that to be considered a journalist, one need not be recognised by a government agency like the state publicity department.
According to the draft bill, all complaints will be received by a district-level committee, which will send its recommendation to a state-level committee which can take up to 15 days to decide and then further recommend action. So, for instance, if a journalist is assaulted by some land, liquor or sand mafia, he has to lodge a complaint with the district committee which will examine the case and recommend action. This will run parallel to the justice system, where if a police complaint is lodged, then it has to take action and arrest the accused and present him in court. The committee is toothless as its "action" will only be recommendatory in nature. There are no inbuilt guarantees that the police have to act on the recommendations.
“If the state's intention is to protect hard-working journalists and credible organisations that expose state repression and deviant officers, then further bureaucratisation of handling complaints will not help.
All committees will consist of journalists, but any committee which has a DGP or collector-level officer heading it is unlikely to investigate any complaint against the police force. Recent experience has shown that most complaints are of police atrocities or false FIRs.
The basic question of why the Act was necessitated has been lost. Journalists who risk going against the state in search of truth need further protection. If the state's intention is to protect hard-working journalists and credible organisations that expose state repression and deviant officers, then further bureaucratisation of handling complaints will not help.
(Neeraj Mishra is a journalist, farmer and lawyer based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The views expressed are personal.)