Miscellaneous - This Day That Age   

dated November 6, 1953: Mukherjee Commission Report

Editorial remarks: The report of the Commission of Enquiry into the assault on pressmen at Calcutta provides no complete or satisfactory answer to a number of important questions raised. Allegations had been made of obstruction and interference by the police with the activities of working journalists during the July agitation. The Commission points out that from 1948 standing instructions are there under which, in times of trouble, police information to the Press was given only from the Control Room at Lal Bazaar. This might substantiate the contention that news was not denied but only canalized but the finding that "whenever the officer-in-charge of the Control Room was free, he gave information to the Press on request" takes away much of its force. When the officer was not free, presumably no information would be available. The Commission's finding that Pressmen had "full and complete access to the Director of Publicity, and even to Ministers", does not help as such access might not amount to much if police alone could give news. The Commission finds that there was assault and arrest of some Press reporters and photographers on the Maidan on 2nd July. But it is difficult to see the point of saying that "assault and arrest were by plain-clothes men not identified." It should not have been difficult to find their identity from officials in charge. It is a pity that the Commission did not, even though it had not been expressly asked to do so, try to find out who had been assaulted or arrested: this might have been of material help in determining who the plain-clothes men were who made the assault. The Commission deals with the justification for the assault; it is stated that a Police Inspector was "assaulted by some of the Press reporters who had gathered together in a group and prevented him from arresting Sunil Sen Gupta (a reporter). The Report says some Press photographers had been moving on the Maidan disregarding the police warning not to get mixed up with the crowd, and suggests that it was disregard of the warning that led to their being belaboured. But, even in a crush, men with cameras could have been easily identified and spared, if the police had realised they were there on lawful business. Unfortunately, they seem to have taken the view that pressmen had no business to be anywhere near where law-breaking was on. The Commission recognises that reporters and photographers were doing their duty in watching the breaking up of the banned meeting and arresting the demonstrators. But it seems to take the extraordinary view that, while pressmen have a right to watch and report, "what is illegal in this case is their congregation into an assembly of more than five in one place, not necessary for watching and reporting." The last obiter is, with all respect, totally uncalled for and untenable. If 40 reporters are present and they represent 40 different papers, it would be absurd to suggest that they should disperse into groups not exceeding five each, lest they offend the provisions of Sec. 144 Cr.P.C... .''

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Miscellaneous

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• The Hindu Crossword No. 7821
• Solution to puzzle No. 7820
• Ego leads to downfall
• dated November 6, 1953: Mukherjee Commission Report
• Weather

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu