On August 8, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking regulation of television news channels to address “sensational reporting.” The PIL further sought for a grievance redressal mechanism such as an independent board or media tribunal.
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices AS Oka and Sanjay Karol, said that the viewers were free not to watch such channels. The court further said that the freedom of speech and expression of those in the media must be kept in mind.
“Who compels you to watch all these channels? If you do not like them, then do not watch them. When some wrong thing is shown, it is also about perception. Is there not freedom of expression? Even if we say no media trials, how can we stop things on the internet and all? How can we grant such prayers? Who takes it seriously, tell us? There is freedom not to press the TV button,” Justice Oka remarked.
“In a lighter vein, what all is said about judges on social media, Twitter; we do not take it seriously. Who will lay down guidelines? Tell your clients not to watch these news channels, and do something better with their time,” he further said.
A Delhi-based advocate filed the PIL seeking the formation of a regulatory authority for news broadcasters to address “sensational reporting.” The advocate alleged that the media’s scandalous coverage of critical issues “just for the sake of viewership and notoriety” tarnishes the image of an individual, community or religious/political organisation.
He further alleged that the charged content on these channels has resulted in violence among the public. The counsel sought that the top court restricts the “assassination of dignity” of individuals, communities or religious/political organisations in the name of “freedom of press.”
Meanwhile, filmmaker Nilesh Navalakha and activist Nitin Memane sought that a media tribunal is constituted to hear and adjudicate upon complaints against media networks and television channels. The petitioners alleged that the Government of India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting failed in discharging its duties and enforcing the Programme Code, which the television channels are expected to follow. The petitioner further argued that self-regulation of channels could not be the answer.
The apex court dismissed the PIL seeking the formation of a regulatory authority to address “scandalous reporting” for the prayers being too wide and noted that a committee comprising a retired judge was already in place.
Meanwhile, the court gave Navalakha to move the jurisdictional high court to seek a media tribunal. “Why can’t you go to the High Court, why [Article] 32 petition? Why should every matter be dealt with by the Supreme Court? Do you think the High Courts are incompetent to hear these matters? Do not forget we are all products of the High Courts,” the court said.
