On August 9, the Supreme Court declined to hear two public interest litigation (PILs) that sought for formulation of regulations governing television news channels. through the pleas, the petitioners had also urged for the establishment of an impartial and independent board, or a media tribunal for resolving complaints over the content broadcasted on such channels.
Refusing to entertain the pleas, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol subsequently asked the petitioners to refrain from viewing such channels if they do not like the content, while reaffirming that viewers were free to not watch such channels. The bench added that the freedom of speech and expression of those in the industry would have to 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, as reported by LiveLaw.
Justice Oka then added that legal remedies are available to those who are offended by content on TV. Furthermore, he commented that the orders and guidelines of the Supreme Court are not being followed, hence this content should not be taken seriously.
“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.”
The Bench dismissed the plea moved by Reepak Kansal, which was the lead plea, pointing out that the prayers were too broad and that a committee with a retired judge was already in place. The Bench granted the counsel for Nilesh Navlakha liberty to move the jurisdictional High Court and allowed him to submit representations for the claim involving the creation of 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,” Justice Oka had remarked, as reported by LiveLaw.
Who had filed the said pleas?
Reepak Kansal, a lawyer based in Delhi, filed one of the petitions in the current case, urging the court to create an independent regulating body to deal with “sensational reporting” on news broadcasts, as reported by LiveLaw. The Economic Times reported that Kansal had claimed that scandalous coverage of important matters “just for the sake of viewership and notoriety” frequently ends in the “tarnishing of the reputation of a person, a community, or a religious or political organization”. The petitioner claimed that the tense nature of the programming on these networks led to public violence. Particularly, Kansal had prayed that the top court restrict the “assassination of dignity” of individuals, communities, religious saints and religious and political organisations by these broadcasting channels in the name of “freedom of press”, as per the LiveLaw report.
In the other PIL, filed by director Nilesh Navalakha and activist Nitin Memane, it was pleaded that a “media tribunal” be created to hear and expeditiously decide allegations against media organizations and television stations.
In the said plea, it was further alleged that argued that the Union Ministry for Information and Broadcasting had completely failed to carry out its mandate and enforce the Program Code that television broadcasters are required to follow.
The petitioners argued that self-regulation of these channels has been deemed to be insufficient as a solution.
The Bench dismissed the plea moved by Reepak Kansal, which was the lead plea, pointing out that the prayers were too broad and that a committee with a retired judge was already in place. The Bench granted the counsel for Nilesh Navlakha liberty to move the jurisdictional High Court and allowed him to submit representations for the claim involving the creation of a media tribunal.
Developing Indian jurisprudence on hate speech
Previously, Justices K.M. Joseph (who has now retired) and Hrishikesh Roy made up the division bench that also observed that they will look at the present law’s insufficiency to effectively address hate speech. In September 2022, the executive wing of government was harshly criticised by the Supreme Court for doing little to stop instances of hate speech even while major TV news stations have come under fire for regularly hosting discussions that allow for the expression of hatred. The Supreme Court bench had also sharply criticised television news channels for airing hate speech and silencing other speakers and participants while expressing concern over the rising frequency of such remarks across the nation. The Court had also flagged the fact that television channels in India are creating divisions in the society since such channels are driven by agenda and compete to sensationalise news.
The Supreme Court bench had expressed its serious concern at the news channels running unregulated, even exclaiming “Where is our nation headed!” The Court had then gone on to emphasise the need of having a strict regulatory framework against hate speech and questioned the Indian government as to “why it is standing as a mute witness while all this is happening?”
Instances of some electronic media misdemeanors
An application was filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee in the Varanasi court to restrain them from spreading any false news. On August 9, the said Mosque committee which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi moved the District Court to restrain the electronic and print media from publishing ‘false news’ about the ongoing ASI Survey of the Gyanvapi premises.
The said application stated that the ASI or its officials have not made any statement pertaining to the ongoing survey, however, social media, print media and electronic media are arbitrarily spreading wrong and false news about it.
“They have been publishing and disseminating information related to the areas inside the mosque which have not been surveyed to date, due to which, there is a wrong impact on the daily life of the public and different types of things are being generated in the minds of the public and the enmity is spreading,” the application added as provided by the LiveLaw.
Citizens for Justice and Peace has filed no less than three dozen complaints over the past three years before the NBDSA –and obtained several favourable orders –against the unprofessional and below standards content of several electronic media channels that appear to be on a round the clock job of stigmatising and demonsing India’s most marginalised sections.
Related:
Three separate benches of the Indian Supreme Court interrogate hate speech
Unchecked Hate Speech Sparks Concerns for communal Harmony in Himachal Pradesh
30 FIRs Registered against Hate Speech and Hate Crimes: DGP, Maharashtra
Register & prosecute hate speech offences promptly, uphold the rule of law: SCI to all States