At around 10 pm on March 28, The Quint put out a statement explaining its stance in the matter pertaining to Lance Naik Roy Mathew’s death. The piece — headlined “Gunner Roy Mathew’s Death: The Quint Asks the Unanswered Questions” — details why certain officers in the Army should be probed for their role in Roy’s alleged suicide.

Earlier that day, The Indian Express had reported that the Nashik Police had filed a first information report (FIR) against The Quint’s journalist Poonam Agarwal. The charges against her include Sections 3 and 7 of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), Section 441 (criminal trespass) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide).

The Quint’s explanation came after almost a month-long silence but puts the organisation’s editorial practices on even shakier grounds than before. While the decision to invoke the draconian OSA against Agarwal is questionable, the discrepancies in the website’s version of events and those put forward by Roy’s family are many.

The sting and the source

The article that is at the root of this controversy is no longer available online, but you can see the questions Newslaundry had raised about the ethics of The Quint’s sting operation to ‘expose’ the ‘sahayak system’. The chief problem was that the identities of the jawans (who had been surreptitiously recorded by Agarwal) were not adequately masked.

The same problem surfaces in the latest explanation offered by The Quint. In it, one of the people who supposedly acted as “trigger” for the story is a retired Army officer who is named by The Quint. He apparently asked Agarwal to come to Deolali “to witness the real situation with the ‘sahayaks’ there”.

Newslaundry reached out to the retired Colonel, but he was unwilling to speak to the media. However, sources who know him informed us that he was deeply distressed with The Quint for naming him and portraying him as someone who had a role to play in the sting. Further, he had no idea how the reporter had reached Deolali and had not asked her to come there. Though he had spoken to Agarwal, our sources stated that those conversations had not centred on the sahayak system in the Army, its misuse or any potential exposé. We were also informed that the Colonel had put the reporter in touch with a Kargil war veteran since she had said she was keen on exploring various aspects of food supply and administration in the Army, in light of issues the Border Security Force and Central Reserve Police Force had been facing.

On the question of naming the Colonel, Agarwal said, “He was not my source. He helped me in getting in touch with my source [a Kargil war veteran who has been named in the FIR along with her].” She did not clarify if she or The Quint had sought the Colonel’s permission before naming him. (You can read Agarwal’s interview with Newslaundry here.)

Given that the Army works under strict conventions to not speak with the media, especially for a story that can be perceived as negative by the institution, the decision to name officers (serving or retired) should be extremely thought-out. By naming the Colonel, The Quint has once again made those from who they gather information vulnerable to potential backlash and censure.

The Kargil war veteran that Agarwal had been referred to by the Colonel has also been named in the FIR along with Agarwal. The Quint does not name him in their explanation and only identifies him as an “operation Parakram hero and a triple amputee”.

A top official in Nashik Police told Newslaundry that this war veteran had allegedly facilitated Agarwal’s entry in Deolali cantonment and had introduced her to the jawans. “He was fully aware of the intention of Poonam,” stated the police official. However, he could not clarify if he was aware that Agarwal had been shooting the conversations with the jawans.

Newslaundry was unable to reach Agarwal’s source to know the exact nature of his involvement in the so-called exposé.

In addition to naming the retired Colonel, The Quint has put out the mobile number of another Army officer involved in the matter. Considering the original report was criticised for not doing enough to obscure Roy identity, it’s disturbing that the website did not think it necessary to pay more attention to the details it’s disclosing to the public.

The family’s version

There is also a divergence between what Agarwal claims she was told by Roy’s family and the family’s own version. The Quint’s clarification said Roy’s father had told Agarwal that his son was “killed by the Army”. However, Roy’s brother, John Mathew, told Newslaundry that his father can neither speak Hindi or English and did not speak to Agarwal at all.

“This ‘father’ she is talking about is my uncle, my father’s elder brother,” said John. “He had spoken to her. My father doesn’t know Hindi or English, then how would he talk?” He added that neither his uncle nor father said that the Army had killed Roy. John instead said, “He [his uncle] called her and said that Roy had gone missing “because of your report’.”

When we asked Agarwal for a clarification, she insisted that she had spoken to the father briefly. She did, however, say that it was the brother who gave her the number of the officer with whom Roy was attached as a sahayak. Yet The Quint’s piece clearly states that Agarwal got the officer’s number from Roy’s father. Such discrepancies on the critical issue of sources weaken The Quint’s case.

While the organisation has given ample space to the family’s apprehensions about the Army’s involvement in Roy’s death, there are no hints of their complaints against The Quint.

Newslaundry spoke to Roy’s wife, brother and other relatives over the course of two days. The family is now intensely wary of journalists and kept insisting that they don’t want more “trouble”.

One relative told us on condition of anonymity, “She [Agarwal] was the first one we got angry at. We didn’t think a video would cost a life. It was later that we found that the video was taken by deceit. That Anish [Roy is called Anish at home] didn’t know [that she was a journalist].”

The relative also said, “At first, we were fighting with Poonam. We scolded her. We told her that because of her report, someone’s life had been affected. Later she said why would only Roy do this, there were other people in the video. What happened to them? And that Roy wouldn’t do such a thing. We were also sure that Roy wouldn’t do such a thing. Poonam also said the same. Poonam was a journalist after all, we thought if we told her, she could investigate [about Roy’s whereabouts]. Then we took it forward with her in a positive way, to get to the truth. We told her whatever we knew.”

It should be noted that Roy’s family does not blame Agarwal for Roy’s death. However, they are deeply disappointed with Agarwal’s journalism.

“Poonam didn’t stay true to the essence of a journalist,” said another relative. “She didn’t perform the mission of a journalist. She should not have given that report which cost a life. If a Colonel is responsible for something, an innocent soldier shouldn’t be asked questions. The Colonel should’ve been asked directly. If she felt so much [about the sahayak system] she shouldn’t have asked the jawans.”

The Army’s role

Agarwal has now filed a counter complaint against certain officers in the Army and stated that she has proof that jawans featured in her video were harassed. The Army had previously stated in a press release that they had not questioned any of the jawans. However, according to Agarwal, the FIR states that there was an enquiry of sorts. Especially with abetting Roy’s suicide as one of the charges, the nature of this enquiry and the pressure it may have put on Roy must be investigated for a fair probe.

Roy’s relatives were extremely careful while talking about this issue. “If he wasn’t [questioned], then why would he do this [commit suicide]?” one relative asked. “That’s the doubt we have. We just want to know if the Army asked him any questions [regarding the video]. We have anyway lost someone.”

Newslaundry had sent a questionnaire to the Army public relations officer on the matter and is yet to receive a response.

As violations go, breaking the rule of secrecy that surrounds the Army, is a serious one. It can potentially have consequences. However, the fact is Agarwal’s story was not revealing any details pertaining to national security or even the cantonment in question. Under the circumstances, there’s little justification for slapping OSA on Agarwal. Despite this, The Quint remains in a vulnerable position — not because of the Army or police or Roy’s family’s apprehensions, but because both in terms of reporting and editorial policies, basic journalistic practices were not followed in this story.

There’s already been one victim of this contest — Roy, who is described by his surviving relatives as a “pillar of the family”. Will Agarwal and the media’s credibility be the next casualties?

The authors can be contacted on Twitter @MnshaP and @shrutimenon10