The Petition was filed in August 2006 caused by the absence / deliberate suppression of information to the Petitioners to meaningfully reply to the Public Notices of July 2006 purporting to incorporate Tejindra Khanna Committee's proposals. Amazingly I am described as a "civil engineer" who was aggrieved by TKC. I never engaged with TKC since IMHO it has no statutory basis. We were not before the Court seeking private relief, just for the information to be provided to us in time and an opportunity to participate by the statutory processes. I agree with Poonam that there is a "slant" to ToI's reportage, upon turning the page I was appalled to see on Page 2 of that day's ToI certain "news" reports attributed to the NASSCOM chief (Mr.Kiran Karnik) which make incredible reading - virtually portraying NASSCOM as the dalals between "panicked" IT professionals and the MoUD.
P Prakash <[email protected]> wrote:The TOI had yesterday ( 12/10/06) a front-page item titled HC: Why just four kinds of professionals are exempted? This mentions a petition by Poonam Singh, a Professor from School of Planning and Architecture. I surmise from the reference in it to Justice Ravindra Bhat and Sarabjit Roy that the item pertains to petitions titled Poonam Prakash & Others versus MOUD & Others that I and two others have filed that came up for third hearing yesterday. The reporter has not spoken with me and has obviously not bothered to check even basic facts, such as filing date, number of petitioners and their names and occupations, etc. The item claims, as impact of yesterdays TOI story, a question that the court did not even ask about an issue that is not even before the court in these petitions. The petitions were filed in July and prayed for certain information and time to be able to effectively respond to the public notices for
proposals to modify MPD-2001 to implement Tejinder Khanna Committee recommendations. The court had issued notice and directed certain information to be provided for filing responses. These directions were not complied with and we were also not given hearing on the objections filed after the courts orders. An application was filed primarily for compliance and the court has again directed respondents to file counter-affidavits.
Such irresponsible reporting is nothing new and Mr Sarbajit Roy, quoted in the items, is taking up the matter with TOI and I will also be discussing with my counsel what, if anything, I need to do. I am, however, more concerned about the larger issue of media misrepresentation of professional viewpoints to fit certain ideas. In the present case, TOI seems to be supporting, besides TKC, expanding / blurring the definition of professions. On the peg of my petition, it has also hung a page-2 item, titled Urban Planners want govt. to change policy. This quotes not the planner whose petition is reported on front page as well as on page-3, but Mr Ajay Maken (MOS in respondent no.1 that has not replied) and Mr AGK Menon and Mr EFN Rebeiro (both involved in advancing the TKC ideas that led to the petitions). The impression conveyed is that the view of these urban planners are the same as of the professionals who have filed petitions. This is nothing short of
stifling peer discourse on professional issues.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 10/12/06
mpisgmedia mailing list
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia + Planning collaborative at http://plan.architexturez.org/
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.