Resolution Statement – 00898-25 Samanta v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Dr Navajyoti Samanta complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The English city where a staggeringly high percentage of women are married to their cousins - and how it can have terrible consequences for their children, as Keir Starmer signals he will BLOCK laws seeking to ban the practice”, published on 8 March 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on potential proposals to “block any attempt to ban first cousin marriage” and referenced consanguineous marriage prevalence rates around the world. The article included a map by Professor Alan Bittles indicating the consanguineous marriage rate in India was 5-9%. The article later reported: “Studies have put Pakistan as having one of the highest rates globally at 65 per cent of unions. This is followed by India (55 per cent)”.

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because there was an internal inconsistency within the article where the map and the text in the article reported different consanguineous marriage rates in India. The complainant further said the “studies” cited by the article was not clearly attributed. He was unable to find any studies making findings that the consanguineous marriage rate was 55% in India. Rather, he said literature review showed a scientific consensus that the consanguineous marriage prevalence rate in India was between 5-10%.

4. The publication said it accepted complainant’s analysis that the more established agreed consanguineous marriage rate in India was 10%.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Mediated Outcome

5. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

6. Prior to IPSO’s investigation, the publication amended the article to note that the accepted consanguineous marriage rate in India was 10%. During IPSO’s investigation the publication further offered to print the following footnote to record the change of the article:

“An earlier version of this article relied on a research paper to allege that India has a consanguineous marriage rate of 55%. It has been pointed out to us that this paper relied on other research which does not include this figure, and that the more established agreed rate is 10%. The article has been amended accordingly.”

7. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

8. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 08/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/07/2025