Is the dispute between Journalists and MLAs a Personal Matter

Agartala, Feb 17: The term “personal matter” is being deliberately misused and distorted to create confusion, driven by vested interests with ulterior motives, speakers at a press interaction alleged on Monday.

They clarified that a personal matter generally refers to disputes arising out of personal relationships—such as land disputes, family feuds, or private financial transactions. Issues like land-related disputes involving any specific person or quarrels between family members fall under this category.

However, they asserted that the present controversy has a completely different origin. The issue began with the publication of a news report concerning alleged illegal repetition involving Rambabu. The report was published and broadcast by print and electronic media in the public interest, with the sole objective of informing citizens. There was no personal emotion, rivalry, or personal gain involved.

The core issue, they said, relates to transparency in governance, accountability of public representatives, and the conduct of those in power.

If any public representative has objections to a news report, the Constitution provides two democratic options:

To submit a written protest or refute the report with supporting evidence.
To seek legal remedy by approaching the court.
Instead of following these democratic paths, the concerned MLA allegedly used his position and administrative influence to file repeated complaints against media persons, accusing them of constitutional violations. This, speakers claimed, was aimed at intimidating journalists, exerting pressure, and potentially imprisoning them.

They stressed that this was not an act of personal vengeance alone, but an abuse of power. Such actions amount to suppression of democratic values rather than a legitimate exercise of authority.
“This is not a personal fight,” they said, “but a display of state power being used to silence the media and promote a culture of fear and revenge.”

Referring to past incidents, they pointed out that similar strategies had been adopted earlier. After reports on the issue of double passports were published in the public interest, the concerned leader allegedly resorted to personal slander instead of responding with facts or evidence. What was essentially a matter of state security and rule of law was reduced to character assassination.

They emphasized that this is not an isolated incident, but a manifestation of a particular ruling mindset that perceives critical journalism as personal hostility and accountability as a threat.

Calling such incidents “personal matters”, they argued, is either a result of extreme ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The ongoing movement by journalist organizations is not meant to protect any individual editor, but to defend the freedom of the press.

A free press, they added, is not merely about journalists’ rights—it is about the people’s right to speak. Ordinary citizens cannot directly question those in power; they do so through the media. If the media is silenced, the people are silenced.

Therefore, administrative repression, intimidation, or misuse of constitutional authority against journalists for publishing news cannot be termed a private matter. It represents a conflict between the state and the citizen, power and freedom, and ultimately between democracy and dictatorship.

Labelling it a “personal matter”, they concluded, is not only incorrect but a conscious falsehood.
*With inputs from Aajker Fariad newspaper.