Defamation: ITC V Suhel Seth

Defamation, Slander, Libel are serious issues. However, most cases that are filed in courts are the frivolous ones while the really serious instances of wilful defamation and slander are ignored. Usually, politicians and tall celebrities ignore slander and defamation for the simple reason that the public doesn’t believe what is being said about them. That really is the key to defamation: People must generally believe what is said, it must affect someone’s reputation negatively, it must result in some kind of verifiable damage or loss. That is usually not the case when people or entities are sued.

Some recent instances one can cite is the frequency with which Digvijay Singh has called Baba Ramdev a ‘thug’ alleging the Yoga guru sells spurious medicines. That is a clear case of slander which Ramdev has not acted upon. The most vicious case of slander and defamation in recent times has to be Vir Sanghvi calling Narendra Modi a “mass murderer”. This was repeated by Rajdeep Sardesai in an HT summit in 2007. Both could have been in very serious trouble had Modi chosen to sue but he let it pass. In yet another instance, tainted cop Sanjiv Bhatt slandered Modi by calling him a “common criminal” on TV. This again is a case of slander. And yet again, Modi has chosen to let it pass. But the extraordinary case of defamation filed by ITC against marketing and advertising guru Suhel Seth surely falls into the category of absurd. Read the full report in the Economic Times titled  “ITC sues Suhel Seth for Rs 200 crore overTweets”. Yes, tweets are also a form of publishing and subject to the same defamation laws applicable to any other media. We’ll come to this case in a while. But before that let’s look at the most bizarre case of defamation – one that concerns Larry Flynt, founder of the porn magazine Hustler and religious leader Jerry Falwell. In a parody of Campari ads about the “…first time”, Hustler carried a parody about Falwell.

While Hustler magazine has always been known for its explicit pictures of nude women and for what many consider crude humour, the Protestant minister Jerry Falwell objected to the parody ad the magazine printed in 1983 targeted at him, in which Falwell related having an incestuous encounter….. The real ads were tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their "first time". The ads, which played off the double entendre in the headline (“X talks about his first time”), initially appeared to discuss the star’s first sexual experience before revealing that the discussion actually concerned the subject's first time drinking Campari. Falwell sued Hustler and Larry Flynt but the US Supreme court finally dismissed the case under First Amendment rights and the fact that the public would have known it’s a parody and wouldn’t have believed the satire was true and therefore Falwell didn’t really suffer any damage. It’s true the US free speech law is more or less absolute unlike Indian laws.

So how exactly has Suhel defamed ITC? Here are some tweets that the news report states ITC has claimed as defamatory:

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has had a sterling track-record of avoiding retirement at all costs...he could also be offered to the Maosits (sic) but then...." Okay, so that is a snide remark by an ex-Advertising consultant to ITC, which Suhel Seth is. Is Deveshwar avoiding retirement? In the opinion of Suhel probably and that’s his opinion. “He could also be offered to the Maoists…” Really? Now what sane person would mistake this sarcastic remark as being one that is really intended and meant by Suhel? Would people seriously believe that is what Suhel desires? Hardly so!

"YC Deveshwar of ITC has just been nominated CHAIRMAN ETERNUS (sic)...forget Emeritus..." Hahahha! I hadn’t read this before because I don’t follow Suhel Seth on twitter, but I do find it humourous. Eternus? And that is defamatory? The report says Suhel has even deleted some of his tweets but I can’t see how this play of words is defamatory. Suhel has also stated that his account was hacked but that is a defence that is unlikely to be accepted by courts. However, I don’t believe that argument is even needed.

'Yogi Devesh will teach the insider trading course at Tihar School of Business'. LOL! As Suhel mentions this particular tweet neither mentions Deveshwar (ITC chairman) nor has any reference to ITC. So the mere self-righteous assumption that this tweet refers to the petitioner is a long shot. Even if it did, Tihar is now so much in the news for all the wrong reasons that there is hardly regular user of twitter who hasn’t cracked a joke or two about it.

It is quite possible that Suhel Seth is quite peeved as a businessman in losing the large account of a company like ITC and maybe making some statements in anger. However, I feel ITC should have just sent him a polite letter to refrain rather than filing a suit straightaway. If this were to be the practice all cartoonists and satirists would be facing defamatory cases almost everyday.

The most important thing in defamation is the question whether people or public would believe the statements being made against a person to be real. Have people stopped associating with Deveshwar or ITC because of Suhel's tweets? Have the share prices of ITC dropped because of these tweets? In this case it doesn’t appear to be so and one hopes the case will be mutually settled instead of a court trial. What ITC must also realise is that by filing the suit they have made even more people aware of the tweets of Suhel, which is far worse because many, including me, hadn’t heard about these before the legal action came about.  

A previous case of Barkha Dutt legally handling an unknown blogger made him and his post all the more famous and widely read. Criticism, mild insults, ridicule and sarcasm should be taken in one’s stride or at best responded to in kind. Why bring courts into it… especially for a whopping amount of 200 Crores? Where’s our sense of humour? Locked up in Tihar?

Sagarika Really Thinks The Law Is An Ass

The phrase “Law is an ass” may have originated in a 17^th century play by one George Chapman. But the phrase is more prominently credited to Charles Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", the poor Bumble replies: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass - an idiot". Well, judges have taken that kindly in their stride ever since but even in this century there are some who think the same, these are modern literary assholes who sometimes masquerade as journalists! Whether it’s an ass or not, I’m not so sure anyone will find the law very sexy or expect it to guarantee an orgasm. Well, I guess no one, unless you are Sagarika Ghose (SG).

“2G case is symbol of national catharsis on graft, courts feel pressured by public baying for blood, evidence (or lack of it), is out of window”. That’s a tweet from none other than SG on November 3. That was in response to rejection of bail to DMK MP Kanimozhi by a CBI court in Delhi. That surely wasn’t the first stupid tweet SG has ever sent out. If there ever were a compilation of stupid tweets, most of SG’s messages would find their way in there. Evidently, journalistic bimbos seem to believe that the law is nothing but like the artful porn that they often keep peddling. This is not the first time SG has demonstrated stupidity where law is concerned. On September 12 when the SC referred the petition against Narendra Modi back to the lower courts the same SG was anguished and desired that the SC should have at least past ‘moral strictures’ against Modi. Not all done, a bit earlier the Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya last year was referred to as ‘Panchayati justice’ by many media celebs. For SG that was just another stupid case about some ‘Divine encroacher’. So when a law man comes along and says ‘behave’ it naturally rattles the entire media clan or, to use Rajdeep Sardesai’s term, he turns off the steam in the media ‘Hammam’. Of all the media dealers who seem upset with the arrival and statements of Justice Markandeya Katju (MK) CNN-IBN seems to be the most rattled.

All this started with Karan Thapar’s interview of MK in which the former judge of Supreme Court lashed out at the media. What’s the response? Hmm! Sagarika asks if MK should apologise on her programme ‘Face the nation’ on November 2. An apology? Okay! Earlier, she wanted an apology from Narendra Modi because the law found nothing against him. Not sexy! So this apology business is getting too frequent. I wonder if SG ever thought about it but if there is someone who has to really apologise for the crap peddled to the nation it she herself. All her misplaced sanctimony could vapourise if she only looked in the mirror. On second thoughts, instead of looking in the mirror she should just listen to her voice, listen to herself and maybe read what she also sometimes writes. In the case of Kanimozhi, SG thinks the law is pressured by the public and acts without evidence or lack of it. I guess she’d prefer the courts acted like her silly shows.

SG has probably never looked at how she has made an absolute trash of the Aarushi murder case, along with many other media celebs. Her nonsense is recorded in this post “Aarushi Case:Flogging The Dead Girl” on February 11. Justice Katju was one who reprimanded the media severely for the way they handled the sensational murder case. To hell with the law and judges. What does the ass and assholes know anyway? And her modesty in her tweets can only be surpassed by a divine squatter on the internet. Sagarika’s tweets are discussed in case study by a post on Google site which I have reproduced. More recently, this star child of the media wrote (Shrillery of the shill): “In the media there is danger of a disconnect between readers and the imitative 'Sex and the City' type columns that pour out of glossy outlets. Academics, closeted in their ivory towers, are failing to engage with new realities and generate new ideas”. Oh really? Sex and the city type columns? Hahahaha! There you go, the SatiSavitri of the media reflecting on her clan. But what about her own article years ago in Outlook (now pulled off the internet by Outlook). That article is titled “Do Indian men owe their women an orgasm?”

Well, Outlook is as glossy a magazine as you can get but I don’t know if SG’s article can be classified under the sex and the city type columns she so deplores. But it can certainly qualify under sex and the law considering she does recommend in her legal treatise that: “Men not only owe women an orgasm but they should be legally bound to provide it”. LOL! Well, it seems that was the only time that SG ever had any admiration for the law. I guess SG never heard that the US courts say that the law can protect your right to “Pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” but the law does not guarantee happiness. Maybe the SC in India should tell her that the law can protect your right to sex but it cannot guarantee orgasm – that is not in the control of the law or the courts. It would be a cold day in May I guess when we get to see a petition in the SC seeking relief for not reaching an orgasm. That would be a great day for SG, of course.

Not so long ago SG ventured to interview the grand-daddy of law, Ram Jethmalani. That was all about Ram defending murder-accused Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall case. She kept on insisting like a moron that it was morally wrong for RJ to have taken up that case. That was some years ago. SG hasn’t learnt from the spanking she got from RJ that the law doesn’t work on her ideas of morals. RJ tried his best explaining to her that every accused is entitled to a defence and lawyers are obliged to defend their clients. And that the decisions are made in the court and not in Sagarika’s TV studio. So even all those years ago Sagarika was under the grave impression that those who are convicted by the media have no right to defence in our courts. And looks like her understanding of law hasn’t changed too much.

Finally, some small advice for Sagarika: The law may be an ass, but don’t try to screw it so often. It can be painful if you are pulled up for contempt and end up in prison. And even in prison the law doesn’t guarantee orgasms, although the law doesn’t exclude the possibilities.

Jug Suraiya - Misunderstander Of Democracy

Jug Suraiya is a veteran journalist and an Associate Editor at Times of India. What sets him apart from other writers is the generous does of humour that he sprinkles his articles with. It seems, though, that the only area where he becomes ordinary and pedestrian like many other writers is when he talks about Islamic rule and democracy. I find it pitiable that after all these years of journalistic pursuits JS appears to have understood neither Islam nor Democracy. That might sound like a harsh comment on JS but that is what he demonstrates in his article titled ‘Cry Freedom’ in the TOI.

It appears JS cannot make up is mind whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not. He also discovers that Islamism, like all other religious or fundamental ideologies, is undemocratic as democracy is generally understood. That is where the stupidity begins. First, let me make it absolutely clear: there is nothing like fundamental Islam and moderate Islam. There is Islam, period! Islam is not just a religion, it is also political guide and the Sharia is the justice system. Needless to mention, under the Islamic political system all non-muslims are secondary citizens or ‘Dhimmies’. Surprisingly, despite having a failed state like Pakistan, an Islamic republic, as a neighbour most of our intellectuals are unwilling to see the truth. And the truth is Islamic rule and democracy are NOT compatible.

Here’s how JS starts off: “But even as cheering crowds celebrate their liberation, how secure is their new-found freedom? What form of governance will replace dictatorship? Will the newly-planted seed of democracy flower or will it fall upon the barren soil of another form of repression?” If he were in a race, JS would be faulted for a wrong start. Freedom from a dictator is not the same as a desire for democracy as we understand it. What in the world makes such intellectuals believe there is a ‘newly-planted seed of democracy’? Any mullah in any corner of the world will tell you that they do not respect ‘man-made’ concepts like democracy. Therefore, an Islamic system which follows the word of God, is the only acceptable form of life and rule for Islamists.

“Contrary to the claims of Islamophobes, Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible. For example, India's large Muslim community participates in the dance of democracy with as much enthusiasm as do its co-citizens of other faiths. That said, Libya's interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, while emphasising that his newly-liberated country will be a 'moderate' Muslim state..”. What a load of rubbish! Here’s a challenge to JS: Conduct a referendum among all muslims in India and find out if they want India to be a democracy as it is or to be an Islamic republic. He will find the real answer. He is also blind to the reality that where muslims are in majority, like in Kashmir, they already want an Islamic system. It is no secret that within their own community muslims in India, despite democracy, practice their own set of codes and laws. That includes polygamy and Talaaq as he indicates will be practiced in Libya. Dance of democracy? This is another idiotic phrase coined by TOI. It almost sounds like the dance of cannibals before they feast on their hunted. Democracy is not a dance, it’s a serious process! And once again the misleading quote is about “moderate muslim state”.

The first sign of being moderate is the willingness to reform based on current realities. I wonder when intellectuals like JS will wake up and realise there is nothing moderate about a religion and its laws that are not subject to reform. Would killing of apostates be abolished in Islam? Hmmm! Killing a non-muslim in an Islamic state is not the same as killing a muslim. Homosexuals are punishable with death. Is that moderate and will that be reformed?

India’s muslims participate in the so called dance of democracy because there is no other choice. There is no way the majority Hindu community and other communities would have it any other way. If democracy survives in India it is primarily because of Hindus and Hindu tolerance and not for any other reason, despite many threats it has faced.

“Islamism, like all other kinds of religious or ideological fundamentalism, is essentially undemocratic, as the term 'democracy' is generally understood. But what if an Islamist, or other fundamentalist, regime is democratically voted into power? Is that a travesty of democracy or a paradoxical affirmation?.....For instance, in Gujarat, chief minister Narendra Modi was voted back into office by popular mandate despite his alleged involvement in the post-Godhra riots, and the subsequent cover-up that his administration is said to have engineered. Modi's brand of pro-majority fundamentalism - which has earned the name of Moditva - claims legitimacy through the ballot box: electoral victory as the equivalent of a dip in the holy Ganga which washes away all supposed sins of omission and commission”. Ideologies that are undemocractic were basically created by ‘intolerant’ people. Christianity managed to reform itself to a very large extent. The freest civilisation of Hindus managed to reform many of their evil practices. Even the Supreme Court of India is on record stating only Hindu practices are reformed by the government. So, the stupid logic that the possibility of being elected can wash away sins coming from a veteran journalist is all the more baffling”.

Let’s do a count. In India many leaders have been unseated by law or public movements or even by journalists. JS discounts this important fact. No less than a dictator like Indira Gandhi was unseated by a court and then by the people. A.R. Antulay was unseated by scams exposed by Arun Shourie. Chimanbhai Patel (Gujarat CM) was unseated by the Navnirman movement in 1974. B.S Yedyurappa has been unseated by a Lokayukta and there are many more such instances. Who claims that electoral victories wash away sins? Most recently it was J. Jayalalitha and later it was Manmohan Singh who claimed that the sins of Cash4votes was washed by the electoral victory of 2009. Why bring Modi alone into the argument? Simple, for the liberatti it is fashionable to denounce his twin electoral victories as victory of a fundamentalist. The electorate is not as stupid as JS would like us to believe, else Indira wouldn’t have lost the 1977 elections. These were all peaceful movements unlike the ones of the Arab Spring which have seen violence as the tool for change. That’s the difference between democracies and fundamentalist populations.

“But democracy is more than just the winning of elections. Democracy is not majoritarianism, the rule of the majority at the expense of the minority. A true democracy guarantees minority rights, with the individual citizen being the ultimate minority. But what if that individual elects to surrender her democratic rights not to wear a burqa, to get a job, to give her daughter an education?” Absolutely! An individual can surrender his democratic rights, the right to wear burqa and the right to remain in a closet forever. Howard Hughes lived his last years as a total recluse in the US, he didn't bother anyone. But deny a daughter education? This is where JS fails miserably to recognise that the daughter is an ‘individual’ too and she cannot be forced to give up her democratic rights till she attains an age when she can make a considered and informed decision. A daughter is not cattle for her parents to impose their closet beliefs. That’s life, Mr. JS!

“What if an individual democratically chooses to embrace an undemocratic ideology or way of life? Is such an individual an affirmation of democracy or a denial of it? Does democracy include your right democratically to renounce your democratic rights?”  Sure, that individual that JS so reveres can do so as long as it does not impede or intrude others’ lives or their rights or beliefs. Yes, democracy includes your right to renounce your rights. Democracy is not an ideology that asks you to exercise your rights every step of the way BUT it does expect that you will fulfil your obligations to society because it is made up of many individuals.

Famous American satirist and comic Bill Maher in his mockumentary Religulous on relgions had this to say in the concluding part of the movie:

“The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken…..Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife……That's it. Grow up or die!”

There you are Mr.JS. In his movie, Maher discusses Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Mormons. Believe me, he has nothing to say about Hindus or Hinduism. Why? Because there is really nothing to say. So save the crap about muslims dancing in democracy in India. Given the opportunity that can change very quickly – ask an Owaisi or an Imam Bukhari. If democracy survives in India it is merely because it’s the Hindu way of life. JS is not just a misunderstander of Islam, he sounds like he’s also a misunderstander of Democracy!

Katju & The Crooks

This is a scene from the movie ‘The American President’ where a presidential aide blasts him for not stepping up and talking to the media as often as his opponent does criticising him. I have quoted this before on this blog but worth recalling: (Quotes, where they appear are in blue)

Presidential aide Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox): “You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism. They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand”.

The President (Michael Douglas): “Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference”.

Along comes a spider and he is starting to scare the little Muffets in the Indian news media. Retired judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Markandeya Katju has stated “90% of Indians are mentally backward and need to be uplifted” by the media. That’s right. Where the news media’s magnitude of nonsense is concerned a majority of the Indian population drinks the sand because they don’t know the difference. Fed on a daily diet of ‘rashi and kundli’, mindless Cricket discussions, divisive debates, hollering anchors and reporters, senseless Bollywood crap, Saas and the city, Saas, Bahu aur Betiyaan, ‘Bhoot-Pret’, spurious opinion polls, fashion shows, Kareena adoring her wax statue and utter nonsense like replaying worst moments from BigBoss they do not have a choice. Most Indians are struggling to make ends meet and can’t be faulted for the kind of trash they absorb from the news media. If these were recognised as entertainment channels there would be no problem but they are supposed to be ‘news channels'.

Justice Markandeya Katju (MK) is now the Chairman of the Press Council of India (PCI) and he is ringing some discomforting alarm bells. He wants to clean up the news media, implement punitive measures for infringements and improve the quality of media functioning. He is pitted against an extraordinary gang which is as thick-skinned as any political group.

Written over a year ago, the post ‘India’s Worst Journalists’ continues to remain among the most popular posts on this blog. Some of the so called journalists in the list like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, Sagarika Ghose, Arnab Goswami among others can share the credit for destroying the credibility of TV news. In recent times the excessive promotion of a Shahrukh Khan movie or excessive space to Modi-haters or Kashmiri separatists is the trend. Some of these media celebs have also been decorated with Padma Shris. I guess that reward is for their excessive mental masturbation on mundane, trivial issues and keeping the real issues in the closet and from the public. That most of these media outlets and journalists are politically inclined toward the Congress is also not a big secret anymore.

Any decently educated and discerning person would hold the mainstream media in utter contempt. Justice Katju does too and that isn’t surprising at all. But before that let’s pick on that coffee shop called ‘Editors Guild’ (EG). For those who came in late, the EG club is nothing but the usual kitty party that rich ladies host with friends to kill time and money except that the EG kills reputations and truth. This is the same EG, when Rajdeep Sardesai was its head, which also sought to bury the Radiagate conspiracy that involved Barkha Dutt and some other journalists. Most of the EG members are your friendly regular crooks. So why would the crooks want policing? Aha! There you are! So when members of this EG appeared before the standing committee of the parliament for the Lokpal bill they were unanimous – Media should not be under Lokpal.

Outlook reports: “Representatives of the Guild led by its President T N Ninan appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel here and said since media was a "private body" it should not be brought under the ambit of the anti-corruption watchdog”. A private body? Hmm! Let’s see, they get to peddle opinions to the masses, they get government quota on housing, they get political ads, they get govt ads some of which are mandatory and they exercise powers like many private businesses don’t. In short, they want all the luxuries of government money and accountability to none. Sounds pretty much like NGOs who also don’t want to be under the Lokpal. Funnier still is that Committee Chairman, Abhishek Singhvi, records that the Guild members have stated their views "clearly and provocatively".

Here are some more scathing observations by MK (All of this in an interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN): 

Indian media is, very often, playing an anti-people role. Let me give you that in three respects. Number one, it often diverts the attention of the people from the real problems which are basically economic. 80 per cent of the people are living in horrible poverty, unemployment, facing price rise, healthcare etc. You divert attention from those problems and instead you project filmstars and fashion parades and cricket as if they are the problems of the people.....

I think it is even worse. I think it is deliberate action of the media to divide the people on religious lines and that is totally against the national interest.....

Yes, the general rut is very low and I have a poor opinion of most media people. Frankly, I don't think they have much knowledge of economic theory or political science or literature or philosophy. I don't think they have studied all this.....

See very often I find those debates totally frivolous. First of all there is no discipline. If there are four people on the panel, all speaking at the same time, is this the way disciplined people should behave? When you speak, I will never interrupt you. But why should you interrupt me when I am speaking?

The majority, I'm sorry to say, are of a very poor intellectual level, media people, I doubt whether they have any idea of economic theory or political science, philosophy, literature, I have grave doubts whether they are well read in all this, which they should be.....

MK is not saying anything new. Such thoughts on the news media have already been voiced over and over again by many in the social media, including on this blog. In response to MK’s statements Karan Thapar points to the National Broadcasters Association (NBA) as a self-regulating body for TV channels. Unlike the PCI, the NBA is not a statutory body and therefore is really not accountable to anyone just as the TV channels are not. MK wants the electronic media also to be under the PCI and for it to be renamed as ‘Media Council’. MK would need to substantially revamp the PCI too. It is the same body that buried its own ‘paid news’ report because most of the members are crooks themselves.

Some of the credit for the collapse of credibility of news channels has to go to some media celebrities like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, Arnab Goswami, Shekhar Gupta, Vir Sangvi, Sagarika Ghose and more. They are responsible for vitiating the atmosphere so much that any sensible discussion of national issues is simply impossible. And they know the kind of panellists they need to pick who can kick and scream and talk over each other. Of the many great people available in this country you can trust the news media to pick on the most uncouth and uncivilised characters as their panellists. They don’t want a decent debate, they want the drama and the spin. Some of the people that adorn the TV screens actually need to be in prison for some of the worst offences. Some of the channels need to be shut down.

How Justice Katju deals with the crooks, only time will tell. But there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that the new chief of PCI is finally one who is with the people and the country.