Let's Build a Responsible Cyber Society




Business Line Article Removed?

[P.S:   It has now been clarified by BL that the article is now available at a different location  with a different headline within their site at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/article2568032.ece?ref=wl_industry-and-economy ....Naavi/28/1\

In a surprising move, Hindu Business Line seems to have removed an article from its internet issue within hours of its publication.

"The article titled IIM prof loses Rs 18 lakhs to SMS fraud" which seems to have been first published on October 24 under the section Industry and Economy seems to have been removed by the publication.

The article was captured by Internet search engines as shown below but the links were not working. (See screen shots below)

However the full article as it appeared earlier is here:

Was the article removed because it was wrong? or because it was objected to by some body? Was the provision of Section 79 of ITA 2008 invoked and Business line responded? are issues which need discussion.

If the article has been removed based on an objection raised under Sec 79 of ITA 2008, it will create an important precedent which will be quoted in the Courts of law in future when other publications donot respond so swiftly.

Further though BL could not remove the print version of the article and had an option to post a rejoinder on the internet version, why did BL took the drastic step of removing the article in a hurry?

The article itself does not have any objectionable content. It only has a quote of the Banking Ombudsman of Karnataka stating that RBI has mandated that he and his team shall visit rural areas to explain the benefits of the Banking Ombudsman scheme. (Also read: Banking Ombudsman Scheme is set to fail: ).

If at all there is any objection it should be to the quote on the IIM professor. The unprecedented move also opens up questions on where was the mistake? Is it possible that the report is wrong ?

If the report is wrong, was Mr Palanisamy wrong in his statement? or the reporter of BL who was in the wrong?

It was surprising that the Banking Ombudsman made a reference to a Phishing fraud to promote his role as Banking Ombudsman. There have been instances where Banking Ombudsmen in other places have come to the aid of Phishing victims. But Mr Palanisamy is one Banking Ombudsman who is known to be refusing to take up complaints involving Phishing types of frauds under the technical ground that " Examination of elaborate Evidence is required". Hence Bank customers with complaints are unlikely to get any relief with the Banking Ombudsman office in Bangalore. For him to quote a phishing fraud was unnatural.

We have pointed out the response of the Bangalore Banking Ombudsman in the complaint of Mr S Nagaraja regarding an ATM fraud (Details available here: ) which explains how the system failed to come to the assistance of the Customer despite mistakes pointed out in the Banking services.

Under these circumstances the BL article which gives the first impression that cases of losses arising out of Phishing or advance fee frauds could be solved under the Banking Ombudsman scheme is misleading.

It would be better if Hindu Business Line comes up with its reasoning of why the article was removed. It will fix the responsibility on the publishing of the misleading article.


October 19, 2011

Vijaya Karnataka of 28th October 2011 has provided more information on the SMS Fraud which trapped the IIM professor.

Message by email similar to the SMS message  which is suspected to have trapped  the IIM Professor



 Comments are Welcome at naavi@vsnl.com