Press Council of India,

Soochna Bhavan, 8-C.G.O. Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Email : pcids@vsnl.net, pcibpp@gmail.com

File No.14/425/07-08-PCI

Dated: 27.10.2008

Press Council of India Decision in Bal Patil' & Justice

Panachand Jain’s complaint Re: The Hindu Report on Jains
included in Scheduled Castes

Sh ri Bal Pa til , Vs . The E di to r,

Gene ra l Secr eta ry , The H in du ,
All In di a Ja in M inor it y F or um ( Ne w Del hi ), Koch i C it y,
Mu mbai . Ke ra la.

Co mp lain t

This complaint dated 4.1.2008 has been filed by Shri Bal Patil,
General Secretary, All India Jain Minority Forum (New Delhi), Mumbai
against the Hindu, Chennai for publication of an objectionable news item
in its issue dated 5.11.2007. The complainant has objected to the
statement made in the impugned news item which reads:

"The Central Government's reported move to give Scheduled Caste

status to Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims will deprive current
SCs (among the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists) of their job and
education quotas, according to Vijay Sonkar, President of All India
Scheduled Caste Reservation Protection Forum."

The complainant has submitted that since as per the Constitution

provisions, the Jains are not included in the Scheduled Caste, he wrote to
the respondent pointing out the report as misconceived and unwarranted,
and demanded clarification. The respondent editor in his reply, furnished
the clarification of the Special Correspondent from Kochi which
reproduced below:
'I spoke to Dr. Vijay Sonkar Sastri and he says that he sticks
to what he said at the meet.
'He has pointed out that SCs among Jains are constitutionally
entitled to SC reservation. May be the organization that took
objection to the reference is not fully aware of the facts, he says.

' I also spoke to Mr. K.V. Madanan, Working President of

the All India SC Reservation Protection Forum, He has quoted
Explanation 2 of Article 25 which says that " In sub clause B of
Clause 2, the reference to Hindu shall be constructed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhish
religions."

The complainant has submitted that since the response was

reiteration of the original report, he had no option but to write a detailed
rejoinder to the respondent-editor taking serious objection to the
unwarranted inclusion of the Jains community in the Scheduled Caste
category.

Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) from Jaipur vide letter dated
2.2.2008 sent his opinion in the matter for consideration on the
complaint of Shri Bal Patil hoping to be of some assistance in resolving
the controversy. Shri Justice Jain has stated that it is desirable that one
may first understand the concept of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. To determine whether or not a particular caste is a Scheduled
Caste or not, one has to look at the notification issued by the President
under Article 341 and once such a notification is issued by the President
it becomes final and any modification thereof can be made by way either
of including or excluding from the list any caste, race of tribe or part or
group thereof by law made by the Parliament. Under this provisions, the
President promulgated a number of orders listing the Scheduled Castes

2
and Scheduled Tribes and also on the recommendation of the Backward
Classes Commission, the Parliamant modified the Presidential orders by
enacting the S.C. & S.T. Order (Amendment) Act. Clause (3) of the

Scheduled Caste Order 1950 provides that no person who professes a

religion different from the Hindus or the Sikh shall be deemed to be a
member of the Scheduled Caste. This provision has created a difficulty
that under Clause (3) of the order only a person professing the Hindu or
the Sikh religion can belong to a Scheduled Caste and a person who
became a Buddist and declared that he had ceased to be a Hindu could
not derive any benefit from the order. The Supreme Court also held
when a member of a Scheduled Caste is converted to Christianity and
thereafter is reconverted to Hinduism, that he belongs to his original
caste if members of the caste accepts him as a member.

From the above statement of facts and law it is thus clear as to who
is a Scheduled Caste, stated Shri Justice Jain and added that the Jains
cannot thus be considered to be falling within the definition of Scheduled
Caste and the Jain do not find any place in any of the Presidential orders,
consequently cannot be regarded as Scheduled Caste.

No tice f or Co mm ents

A notice for comments was issued to the respondent on 25.2.2008.

Co mm ents

The respondent Editor-in-Chief of the Hindu Shri N.Ram in his

comments dated 27.3.2008 has submitted that the news item in question
was a factual report based on the public utterance of Mr. Vijay Sonkar
Sastri, President of All India Scheduled Caste Reservation Protection
Forum, former BJP MP and former Chairman of the SC/ST Commission,
at a news conference at Kochi, Kerala. He has stated that the news item, a
mere reproduction of what was stated in public, was published in good

3
faith and in public interest in order to bring the news of a proposed
agitation scheduled nationwide and without any intention of causing any
hurt to any person of any religion, caste or community. On being
approached in the matter, Shri V.S.Sastri stood by what he had said at the
news conference and stated that 'the SCs among Jains are constitutionally

entitled to SC reservation and the organization that took the objection is

not aware of the fact' stated the respondent and added that the
newspaper and its correspondents adhered to the journalistic norms,
guidelines and ethics.

Copies of the comments were forwarded to the complainant Shri

Bal Patil and Shri Justice P. C. Jain on 4.4.2008 and 23.4.2008 respectively
for their information and counter comments, if any.

Co unt er Co mm ents

Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) in his counter comments dated

5.5.2008 has submitted that clubbing together amongst the current
Scheduled Castes, 'Hindu, Sikhs, Jains and Buddists' with Jains is not only
misleading but it is factually incorrect. It is in this manner that a
controversy is being raised and Jains are unnecessarily being dragged into
the category of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of undermining their
superiority in comparison to Forward Hindu castes and communities,
stated Shri Justice Jain. He has added that Shri Patil, the complainant was
against the unwarranted and misleading inclusion of Jains in the
Scheduled Caste category and desired that correct statement of fact may
be published. Shri Justice Jain further has alleged that clubbing Jains
amongs Dalits is a serious insinuation against the Jain community as Jains
do not fall amongs the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
which has a special meaning under the Constitution. He has submitted
that the defence taken by the respondent is not sustainable in law and
appropriate action may be taken in the matter. The complainant Shri Bal
Patil in his letter dated 9.5.2008 has submitted that he concurred in toto

4
with the arguments and citations given by Shri Justice Panachand Jain to
refute the statement of the respondent.

A copy each of the counter comments dated 5.5.2008 and 9.5.2008

received from Shri Justice Panachand Jain and Shri Bal Patil respectively
were forwarded to the respondent on 14.5.2008 for information.

Sho w C au se N ot ice

Since the complainant was not satisfied with the comments made
by the respondent, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on
30.5.2008.

Wr itten State ment

Shri N. Ram, the respondent–Editor in Chief of the Hindu in his

written statement dated 16.6.2008 has submitted that the news item in
question was a factual report based on the public utterances of Mr. Vijay
Sonkar Sastri, President of All India Scheduled Caste Reservation
Protection Forum, former BJP MP and former Chairman of the SC/ST
Commission, at a news conference at Kochi, Kerala. The news item, a
mere reproduction of what was stated in public, was published in good
faith and in public interest in order to bring the news of proposed
agitation scheduled nationwide and without any intention of causing any
hurt to any person of any religion, caste of community stated the
respondent. He has added that on receipt of objections from the
complainant, the Special Correspondent approached Mr. Vijay Sonkar
Sastri, who then stood by what he had said at the news conference. They
have also spoken to Mr. K.V.Madanan, working President of All India SC
Reservation Protection Forum, who stated that as per Explanation 2 of
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which says " In Sub Clause B of
Clause 2, the reference to "Hindu" shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhit religions", and
this information was also conveyed to the complainant, stated the

5
respondent. The complainant further submitted that there has been no
violation of such norms, guidelines and ethics in the matter.

Copies of the written statements were forwarded to the

complainant and Shri Justice Panachand Jain (Retd.) on 20.6.2008 for
information/counter comments, if any.

Appe ar ance be fo re t he Inq ui ry C om mi ttee

The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

22.08.2008 at New Delhi. S/Shri Bal Patil, General Secretary, All India
Jain Minority Forum (New Delhi), Mumbai, appeared in person, along
with Shri Justice Pana Chand Jain. S/Shri S. Ramanujam alongwith Mr.
M.K.V. Vishwanathan, Advocate appeared for the respondent, The
Hindu.

Sub miss ions be fo re t he In qu ir y Co mm ittee

The complainant submitted, with due respect to Dalits that the

news item in The Hindu quoting the statement of Shri Vijay Sonkar
Shastri on SCs among Jains was misconceived. The complainant
submitted that there are no Dalits in Jains. The complainant submitted
that the newspaper report unfairly included Jains in the SC category. The
complainant requested that his rejoinder should be published. Shri Justice
Panachand Jain submitted that the newspaper had given factually wrong
statement. The newspaper should have published their version that Jains
are not included in SCs to rectify the misgivings.
The Counsel for The Hindu submitted that the complaint was not
maintainable. The respondent submitted that as per several Supreme
Court Judgments embracing any religion by a Dalit does not deprive him
or her of the rights available prior to conversion. He added that The
Hindu held no ill intention in the case and only reported a statement at a
press conference, therefore, the complaint should be rejected.

Recom mend ation s of t he Inq ui ry C om mi ttee

6
 The Inquiry Committee upon perusing the documents and hearing
the parties finds that although the newspaper, the Hindu had only carried
the statements made at a press conference and its bonafide could not be
doubted. However, it was advisable for the editor to have published the
views of the complainant to allow him to put his point of view before the
readers. As an impartial reporter, that was the prime duty of a newspaper.
The Inquiry Committee, therefore, directed the Editor, The Hindu,

through its counsel, to publish the gist of the complainant's rejoinder as

per norms and send clippings to the Council as well as to the
Complainant for information and record. It recommended to the Council
to dispose off the matter accordingly.

Decis ion o f the Co unc il

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and

report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the
recommendations of the Committee and decides accordingly.

____________________________________________________________