( 1 ) PETITIONER by this writ petition- impugns letter dated 11. 10. 2001, of the Press Council of India annexure P. 16, informing the petitioner that in view of the publication of the clarification by the respondent newspaper Dainik Sambad, no further action Is warranted in the matter.

( 2 ) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner Is that the respondent newspaper has made a mockery of Its clarification by reducing it and omitting essential portions. Petitioner s original complaint against the respondent was found to be justified by the Press council. The Enquiry Committee of the Council, recommended a warning to be given to the respondent newspaper for the infarction of Journalistic ethics. Petitioner was directed to send a factual clarification to the respondent newspaper for publication. Respondent was required to publish It within a week of receipt, without omitting any portion. The editor was however given liberty to append his note that they stood by the original story, If so advised.

( 3 ) WRIT petition raises an interesting question with regard to the right of an aggrieved person to Insist upon the full text of the reply/clarification to be published vis-a-vis the right of the newspaper to edit the same and restrict its- length, as long as the essential points are retained and no material portion is omitted.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief as set out by the petitioner may be noted:-

(I) Petitioner claims that a defamatory news item in "dainik Sambad" was published on 24. 2. 1999. Petitioner sent its letter of protest for publication to the newspaper. The same was not published. Respondent published another news item on 28. 2. 1999 "irregularities do exist in VHAT activities-Shreelekha" purporting to publish the letter of protest. This was followed by further news items published on 5. 3. 1999 and 8-10th April, 1999, which are claimed to be defamatory by petitioner.

(II) Petitioner sent another letter of protest to the newspaper dated 5. 3. 1999, which was not published. There was no response to a reminder/letter of protest sent by the petitioner on 14. 3. 1999. Finally, a complaint was filed by the petitioner under section 14 of the Press Council Act against the newspaper. The newspaper filed its written statement before the Press Council of India. Upon completion of the pleadings, the matter was heard by the Enquiry committee.

(III) The Enquiry Committee of Council after hearing both the parties concluded that the newspaper had not verified the facts at the pre publication stage. The respondent newspaper s contention that the petitioner admitted the existence of irregularities in the letter of protest, was negatived. The Committee also reached the conclusion that the respondent, while publishing the clarification had cleverly selected certain sentences to suit its convenience and omitted the material portions. Committee held that this amounted to compounding the offence. Committee recommended to the Council to warn the respondent for the infarction of journalistic ethics pertaining to pre publication verification and of the right of reply. It directed the complainant/petitioner through her counsel to send a factual clarification to the respondent newspaper, to be published within a week of its receipt without omitting any portion. The editor, of respondent was at liberty to append a note that they stood by the original story, if so advised. The Press council of India accepted the recommendations of the enquiry Committee and order dated 28. 8. 2000 was passed by Chairman of the Press Council of India, recording the above decision.

(IV) The petitioner claims that it sent the clarification for publication through Its advocate on 16. 10. 2000. The respondent newspaper vide its letter of 10. 11. 2000 protested against the length and content of the clarification given by the petitioner. Respondent claimed that the clarification did not relate to the News item. It was in the nature of a biography and self laudatory statements. Res