It has been found that IPRD has released government advertisements to all such publications for years and years together against which all these newspaper managements raised the bills.. During the period several objections were also raised on this count time to time. Once by the state government Finance (Audit) department in the year 2006 vide its letter no. 178 dated. 9/5/2006 and twice by Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Deputy Director, in his comments on departmental files.

It is also noteworthy that in course of a one to one interviews, the state IPRD officials denied even
existence of any adverse comment by the then IPRD Deputy Director, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh in this regard. In course of its response to an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act too which was signed by no other than the then IPRD Deputy Director Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (now retired), he denied it. Though in the reply to an RTI application, signed by B P Singh himself, mention that it was just a mantawya (I.e. comment) and not a “report”. However, the fact finding team on its own endeavour dug out the photo-copy of B P Singh’s comments, which is being annexed herewith this FFT Bihar report.

Surprisingly enough in spite of this issue being discussed at the IPRD level twice the practice of publication of “illegal” editions, issuance of advertisement release orders to these illegal publications and payment thereof continues. This fact amply highlights the unholy deep nexus of the newspaper management with the mandarins of the IPRD.

Bihar Advertisement Policy- 2008 eligibility criteria clearly mention as: (b) The Newspaper / periodical must be registered under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act (PRB Act) 1867 by the RNI, New Delhi. But this clause has been found to be conveniently ignored by the IPRD officials while issuing release orders for the favoured newspapers and the unregistered split district editions thereof by the fact finding team.

The Fact Finding Team also find mention of the term “interest of the state or work” in the Bihar Advertisement Policy-2008 which is pregnant with meanings. It could be interpreted in many ways by the government officials to harass those media houses, who dare go critical of the state government.

This term could be interpreted as per the whims and fancies of the state government or its officials to make them toe the state government line. When asked the IPRD officials too in their interaction with the Fact Finding Team conceded that it “could be explained in many ways”. However, the IPRD officials pleaded that it is a common practice that such terms are used by the government, while framing government rules and policies.

The team is of the opinion that such an open-ended term smacks of state government intention to
exercise control over the newspapers. The team feels that term like “interest of the state or work” should be defined and codified and should not be left to the whims and fancies of the officials for its interpretation. But the team is of the firm opinion that to ensure freedom of press enshrined in Article 19 1(a) of the Constitution of India in its letter and spirit, such vagueness should not be allowed to continue further.

A good number of newspaper reporters are engaged in collecting advertisements from the private
parties too on which they are also given cut money as “commission” by the newspaper management. Such incidents also came before the fact finding team. One such reporter Sardar Surendra Singh of Gaya who was earlier working as a stringer with Aaj Hindi Daily of Patna appeared before the Fact Finding Team saying that the Aaj management has still not paid an amount to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh of the commission due to him for the advertisements, which was collected by him for his publication for which he was working with at that time.