Indian Newspaper Society and News Broadcasters Association deny newsroom lay-offs and cutbacks

Goa 365 cable TV station in Goa, India. October 2017. Image licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International by Frederick Noronha.

[Updated on 19 May 2020 at 0900hrs. First published on 18 May 2020 at 1915hrs]

Newspapers and news television channels in India have seen salary cutbacks, deferral of appraisals and lay-offs since the country went under a lockdown on 24 March 2020. Despite evidence of the same in public domain, including filings with the Bombay Stock Exchange and news reports, the Newspaper Society of India (INS) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) replying to a writ petition in the Supreme Court (SC) of India on the issue have claimed news reports of salary cutbacks and lay-offs are false. The petition was filed against INS, NBA and the Union of India by the Delhi Union of Journalists, the Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists and the National Alliance of Journalists 16 April 2020.

The petition was admitted in the SC on 27 April and the court asked the Union of India, NBA and the INS to file their replies in two weeks. NBA filed its counter on 11 May and INS on 13 May. The Union of India is yet to file its reply.

INS and NBA have prayed the SC to dismiss the petition claiming the petition is based on news reports which are denied by both the organisations and further that the petition interferes with the freedom of the press. They also claim the government of India’s advisory on payment of wages and non-termination of contracts during the period of the lock down an overreach.

The INS’s counter affidavit further claims,“The onus to compensate workers is on the Government, which cannot be shifted upon employers in the private sector.”

The importance of tracking layoffs and cutbacks in newsrooms in India due to COVID19

You can read the entire text of the counter affidavits filed by the NBA and INS by following the links below.

NBA’s counter affidavit
INS’s counter affidavit
Writ petition filed against NBA, INS and the Union of India

I am tracking newsrooms cutbacks in India due to COVID19. If you are personally affected or know of any newsroom that has made cutbacks please do fill up this form: https://forms.gle/WSM5et1WnHw1dmmH7

Relevant parts of the counter affidavits are reproduced below.

The News Broadcasters Association’s counter affidavit claims the following

1. …the present Writ Petition purportedly filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in law
2. …a Writ under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of alleged fundamental rights against private bodies is not maintainable.
3. …the present Writ Petition is bereft of any substance and the same is based purely on news reports and the Petitioners have not made any enquiries regarding the veracity and authenticity of such news reports nor have the averred as to the efforts made by them to check the authenticity and veracity of such news reports.
4. …a Writ Petition under Article 32 is not maintainable for enforcement of personal contractual rights. Thus, the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court.
5. …the Respondent and its member Broadcasters are a part of the electronic media, which is not covered under the provisions of the Working Journalists Act.
6. …National Alliance of Journalists, Delhi Union of Journalists, and Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists neither represent the Journalists of the Country nor have the locus standi to file this petition. The reliefs prayed for is that the services of the journalists (members of the petitioners) should not be terminated and their wages should not be reduced which is to safeguard the employment of the petitioners themselves and does not qualify to be a public interest litigation.
7. The reliefs prayed for are totally unreasonable, unjustified and are in fact against Article 19(1)(a) as it interferes with the freedom of press, and may even drive the press to the brink of insolvency in absence of corresponding revenues.
8. It is false and hence denied that there is any inhuman and illegal treatment being meted out by the Respondent to its employees as alleged or at all. As stated above, the Respondent is an association of the private television news & current affairs broadcasters. The various allegations made against the Respondent are wrong and hence denied.
9. The advisory dated 20th March, 2020 is in the nature of a request and issued as an advisory. It is neither law under Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India, and is in any case not binding on employers. Further as far as Notification dated 29.03.2020 is concerned, without prejudice to the contention that it is not binding or legal, it is submitted that it is clear that the direction is with respect to payment of ‘Wages’ to the ‘workers’ at the ‘workplace’ by the Employers. It is not applicable to Journalists engaged by Respondent
10. the reliefs prayed for in the present petition are seeking a blanket stay against the rights of the Employers.
11. The contents of Paragraph 16 of the writ petition is general, vague and without any specific details and is solely based on newspaper reports and is denied.

You can read the NBA’s entire counter affidavit here.

You can read about all the cutbacks and layoffs in newsrooms in India since March 2020 here

The Indian Newspaper Society’s counter affidavit claims the following

1. At the very outset, the answering Respondent denies all claims,
   allegations and averments made by the Petitioner in the present
   Petition, unless specifically and explicitly admitted.
2. The Petitioners by erroneously impleading the answering Respondent are trying to wriggle out of impleading individual newspapers. It is pertinent to mention here that only 3 of these individual newspapers, as mentioned in the Petition, are members of the Respondent №2 Society. The answering Respondent has no authority over the alleged actions of these individual newspapers and is therefore not connected to the subject matter in any way. That it may also be noted that no formal complaint was ever filed with the answering Respondent with respect to the alleged actions either.
3. …notifications of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Labour and Employment and various state governments as cited by the petitioners are vague, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are also ultra vires the Acts under which they have been promulgated.
4. That advisories issued by the Labour and Employment Ministry, Government of India do not differentiate between the workers who report to work and the workers who refuse to work, when it comes to entitlement for wages for lockdown period as concerned, and are thereby contrary to the principle of ‘Equal work, equal pay’.
5. …the government orders are passed beyond the legislative competence and therefore, ultra vires the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
6. The onus to compensate workers is on the Government, which cannot be shifted upon employers in the private sector.
7. …the government orders are arbitrary or excessively invade the right of an employer.
8. That in the present circumstances and for the foreseeable future, the capacity to pay manifestly does not exist anymore. Thus, pitching it at its lowest, the obligation to continue employing people and to continue paying wages at the pre-crisis levels is no longer existent.
9. …the Government/State is a model employer for all other employers, and in times of a calamity of global proportions, when even the model employer is resorting to actions like wage cuts in order to control its expenditure, its hypocritical and discriminatory for the Government to advise or mandate private institutions not to resort to such activities.
10. Government of India ought to have considered that Provident Fund Department has bounteous accumulation of over Rs. 351 crores as unclaimed Provident Fund Deposits’ and this amount can be utilised to financial support the workers at the times of these unprecedented crisis.
11. That the contents of Para 2 of the petition are denied as no cause of action ever arose against any newspaper establishment, let alone the answering Respondent. …the answering respondent has neither advised nor encouraged newspaper establishments to take any adverse action against their workers or employees. Therefore, the answering respondent is not an appropriate party against whom relief may be sought.
12. That the contents of Para 16 are denied for being false and baseless, except for anything that forms part of the public record. It is submitted that the answering respondent does not possess the requisite data to appropriately defend each of the newspaper establishments that are being alleged to have violated government advisories. It is reiterated that the notification dated 23.03.2020 being only in the nature of an advisory, at most can only impose a moral obligation on private enterprises and organizations, and is therefore not enforceable against them.
13. That the contents of Para 17 are denied for want of knowledge and the Petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The Petitioners have vaguely cited seven (7) instances of actions taken by establishments in the media sector. Three (3) of these are entirely online, electronic or digital platforms. It is pertinent to mention here that that only 3 of these individual newspapers namely Indian Express, Times of India and Sakal are members of the Respondent №2 Society.
14. Regarding four (4) establishments, information has been quoted from various online articles whose authenticity is questionable. Therefore, the Petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. Even in respect of the averments made against the named newspapers, the answering respondent is in no position to either confirm or deny them as the same are not and can not be in the knowledge of the answering respondent.
15. The Petition relies upon reports appearing on some website, the veracity of which is unknown and unknowable. As a matter of fact, without in any way subscribing to or admitting the veracity of any of the quoted reports, a case in point is the obvious mistake admitted by the said website as evidenced in Annexure P7 where the report at page 53 in a post script admits a prior misreporting. Further as in Annexure P6 at page 51 the report admits that the management refuted rumors that formed the basis of the report and it considered the same “negative news” and “false allegations”.

You can read the INS’s entire counter affidavit here.

I am tracking newsrooms cutbacks in India due to COVID19. If you are personally affected or know of any newsroom that has made cutbacks please do fill up this form: https://forms.gle/WSM5et1WnHw1dmmH7

You can also reach me at email me at samcyril@protonmail.com or reach out to me on Twitter at @cyrilsam, my DMs are open.

This is part of the News@COVID19 Project. Support the project by making donations here: https://rzp.io/l/3JhhBGu.

Read more about the News@COVID19 Project here.