Why Times Now should face strict action for Tejpal Tapes programme

Just when one thought that Times Now, which has by now gained notoriety for its sensational coverage and harassment of panelists, could not sink any lower in terms of its (non)-adherence to media ethics, there come two programmes broadcast by the channel on the same day, that not only mark a new low, but are patently illegal.

These two programmes are titled “Tejpal's Indiscretions Caught On CCTV” and “"Tarun Tejpal Submits Proof Of His INNOCENCE After Five Years”, and were hosted by Times Now Editor Navika Kumar and Editor-in-Chief Rahul Shivshankar, respectively. On both these programmes, ostensibly positioned as demanding justice for the survivor of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s alleged sexual assault in 2013, both the anchors air footage which is part of the closed evidence in an in-camera trial which is still going on before the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji.

In both these programmes, the anchors, without any compunctions whatsoever, air the CCTV footage of the hotel in which Tejpal and the complainant were staying. The footage, lasting for a total of 376 seconds, is of the moments just before and after Tejpal and the complainant got into, and came out of the hotel elevator on the nights of 7 and 8 November, 2013. The complainant has alleged that on both days, Tejpal sexually assaulted her in the elevator, and though she repeatedly entreated him not to, he just forced himself upon her.

The Illegality of It All

What Navika Kumar and Rahul Shivshanker ought to have cared about, and obeyed, is Section Clause (3) of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits anyone from publishing any matter in “relation to” in-camera proceedings in cases of rape or sexual assault, “without the previous permission of the court” (emphasis added).

Thus, it is clear that the footage of the CCTV camera, which the survivor is relying upon to prove Tejpal’s culpability, and which Tejpal and his team of lawyers are vehemently citing to discredit the prosecutrix and prove his innocence, is material in relation to the ongoing in-camera proceedings.

It is the first time that a media house has aired footage which is part of the evidence in an in-camera trial, so there are no judicial precedents, except the bare provisions of the law, which can be cited in this regard.

One has to also question how Times Now got access to the footage. Although it has been repeatedly claiming that it got access after painstaking efforts, the channel’s claim appears dubious, because, according to reliable sources who requested anonymity, Tejpal has been going around showing the footage to select “friends” who he hoped would rally behind him. How did Manu Joseph, former editor of Open magazine write the innuendo-laden and victim-blaming piece titled “What the Elevator Saw” in Outlook magazine in which he caste snide aspersion’s on the survivor’s truthfulness?

According to Indira Unninayar, a Delhi-based lawyer working in the field of gender justice and workers’ rights, Tejpal should be hauled up by the court for circulating evidence, the circulation of which is prohibited by law. Moreover, according to her, Times Now should never have conducted a media trial on a matter which is sub-judice.

Blatant Violation of Ethics

Both the Times Now programmes on which the CCTV footage was broadcast, were followed by “debates” which in reality is a euphemism for an unabashed media trial in which some of the panelists went to great lengths to shame the survivor and prove her mendacity.

Shivshanker said that after airing the CC TV footage, "we come away with a mixed interpretation" about the truth of what the victim was saying. Going further, he said that there are "palpable inconsistencies between what the victim is saying and what the footage shows". He left it free for the viewers to make up their mind about the guilt or innocence of Tejpal. if this is not a media trial, then what is?

On Shivshanker’s show, one panelist, criminal lawyer Ashish Dixit, went so far as to claim that since the CCTV footage was not supplied by the prosecution to Tejpal initially and he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to gain access to it, this clearly proves that the survivor, in connivance with the prosecution, was trying to suppress evidence which would prove Tejpal’s innocence.

It is interesting to note the titles of the programmes—one called alleged rape “ïndiscretions”, while the other provocatively mentioned Tejpal’s innocence, that too in upper case. So much for standing up for the survivor, something which both the anchors feigned to do.

The anchors’ choice of panelists also needs to be questioned. Why did they deliberately select panelists who would leave no stone unturned to question and shame the victim?

When this correspondent spoke to Senior Advocate Rebecca John, the survivor’s lawyer, and enquired if she would move court against Times Now, John asked in an anguished tone “Why should the onus be always put on the complainant? It is the prosecution’s duty to file a complaint before the court.” John slammed the airing of the footage as blatantly illegal and utterly despicable, especially because the survivor is forced to remain silent and suffer the ignominy since her cross-examination is yet to commence (John pointed out that Tejpal’s lawyers have been delaying it for almost four months now on one pretext or the other) and she cannot afford to say anything which the accused’s lawyers would use to discredit her testimony.

Geeta Seshu, senior journalist and consulting editor of mediawatch website The Hoot, asked why was Times Now suddenly running two sleaze-laden programmes on Tejpal at primetime? Was it because the channel was trying to cover up, and distract from, the CobraPost expose which purported to reveal the dark secrets of the Times Group? Seshu, who has filed a complaint with the News Broadcasters Association, said that when she tried to file a complaint against the channel on the Times Now website, she was obstructed from doing so because the channel said that it would not entertain any complaint against a programme if it was in public interest. What was the “public interest”in the two programmes, Seshu asked? Merely because some sections of the public would be interested in the sordid details and the slugfest which passes off as debate, does not make it in public interest in any way, she said.

Ammu Joseph, veteran journalist and founder-member of the Network of Women in Media-India, slammed Times Now for airing programmes which vilify survivors of sexual assault and would have a chilling effect on future survivors going to court or the public with their accusations. The survivor in this particular case had the gumption to go public with her allegations and bravely fight the case, but how many others would have that, she asked. What Times Now has done is definitely not journalism, she asserted.

Delhi-based criminal litigator Sarim Naved gave the example of the Bombay High Court’s decision in Mushtaq Moosa Tarani v. Government of India (31 March, 2005) in which the court stalled the release of the film Black Friday till the TADA Court had delivered its verdict in the 1992 Bombay Blasts case. Quoting the high court’s judgement, Naved said that the present case was a fit one for securing an injunction against the broadcast of the two Times Now programmes till the rape case was decided.

As of now, it is not known whether the News Broadcasters Association would act against the channel, but it is understood that Times Now would be undeterred in its pursuit. This is because Navika Kumar defended the channel’s actions with a blunt “we believed we had a story, and we did it. No further comments.”