Editor's Guild of India | SabrangIndia

Editors’ Guild of India warns of rising threats to journalists under new criminal laws in letter addressed to Home Minister Amit Shah

sabrang — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:56:09 +0000

On July 29, The Editors’ Guild of India addressed a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah, expressing serious concerns over the misuse of the newly introduced criminal laws against journalists and the expanding powers. The letter highlighted the increasing use of criminal code provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [BNSS], which have replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The letter specifically highlights the provocating speech laws that have been used historically to target journalists whose reporting has been critical of governing establishments, especially when it came to liberally using Sections 153A and B, 295A, 298, 502, and 505 of the IPC against the journalists.

The letter states “Over the years and under successive governments, many provisions under the criminal code, the so-called offensive speech laws in IPC- sections 153A and B, 295A, 298, 502, and 505, have been liberally used to file FIRs against journalists whose reporting has been critical of governing establishment. This has been done by governments across states and party lines.”

It further said that “In some cases, journalists have been imprisoned for long durations, as the cases have moved at a snail’s pace in courts, and in others, while there may not have been an arrest, yet the process of defending against frivolous complaints has itself become a punishment.”

The letter further points to the various amendments and laws that have been introduced between the year 2019 to 2023, through which the Modi-led government has enacted several laws that significantly broaden the scope of criminal regulations and expanded police powers of arrest, thereby further restricting civil liberties. The letter specifically cites amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 2010, and the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Identification Act, 2022, as examples of laws that are being used to target journalists critical of the government.

The letter points out that these laws have been exploited to harass and intimidate journalists, creating a chilling effect on press freedom. The organisation has called for a more rigorous review process before filing FIRs against journalists. They propose that any complaint against media professionals be reviewed by a high-ranking police officer and brought to the attention of the Press Council of India.

Calling for journalistic exception, the letter provides that “We also are of the opinion that given the precedent in the manner in which criminal laws have been used as tools of harassment and intimidation against journalists, with a potential of setting a chilling effect, there is a legitimate case for a journalistic exception in the registration of FIRs. Far too often we have seen that process is the punishment and that there is a case for protecting members of the press/media from frivolous criminal complaints and indiscriminate state/police action in relation to acts done in the course of their duty. And we re-iterate, this has been the case under governments across party lines. Therefore, we strongly feel that before a criminal complaint is registered as an FIR against a journalist, with a reference to a journalistic work done by them, there be an additional and thorough layer of review.”

Furthermore, the letter underscores a need for holding a deep consultation with the journalists as well as formulation of some set of guidelines for regulating prosecutions against members of the press/media for actions in the course of their duty. Till then, a mechanism has also been proposed by the EGI whereby any such complaint against a member of press is reviewed by a high-ranking Police Officer, and that it is brought to the knowledge of Press Council of India, for an opinion on whether further investigation of the complaint/information would be an unreasonable burden on the freedom of profession and freedom of expression of the alleged offender as a member of the press. According to the letter, such set of guidelines can go a long way in preventing the misuse of these laws against journalistic activities.

The letter includes an Annexure on specific provisions of laws under the BNS and the BNSS against which the EGI has raised concerns. These provisions include Section 152 (Treason), Section 197 (Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration), Sections 111-112 (Organised Crime), and Section 113 (Terrorism) of the BNS. Along with each section, the letter provides the issues associated with the said provision and the ways the same can be misused against journalists and clamp down on personal liberties.

In regarding to the BNSS, procedural provisions governing arrest and bail, powers of search and seizure, and attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime have been highlighted in the letter.

The complete letter can be viewed as follows:

Download PDF

Should Government Employees be allowed to Join RSS?

United Christian Forum submits detailed memorandum to Minority Affairs minister Kiren Rijiju highlighting targeted violence against Christian Community; demands repeal of anti-conversion laws

The post Editors’ Guild of India warns of rising threats to journalists under new criminal laws in letter addressed to Home Minister Amit Shah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Editors’ Guild urges government to remove COVID-19 era restrictions on journalists covering parliamentary proceedings

sabrang — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 12:43:13 +0000

The Editors Guild of India has written to the newly elected Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, and Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar to urge them to lift restrictions on journalists covering House proceedings.

These letters were also shared with the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and leaders of all parties in both houses.

These restrictions on media were placed when the Covid-19 protocols were enforced which gave limited access for media personnel, including those with permanent accreditation. With the pandemic under control, the Guild has asked for restoring full access to ensure transparent reporting of the parliamentary proceedings.

The letter also states that the Press Advisory Committee has not been formed again in the last few years. The Press Advisory Committee’s is a body that has responsibilities which include recommending the grant of permanent passes to representatives from newspapers, news agencies, and media who wish to cover House proceedings from the Gallery or any other parliamentary events. The body was founded in 1929 under the president of the Central Legislative Assembly Vithalbhai Patel. It is appointed by the Speaker and is made up of 25 journalists. It also makes recommendations on various matters.

As per the letter, around a thousand journalists have been thus far permitted to cover the proceedings. However, only a small number of them are allowed and given permission.

“The country has fought the scourge and moved on and we hope limiting access is also done away with”, the letter reads, “The decision to provide unfettered access to journalists was in practice since the Constituent Assembly and continued by the first Parliament. The objective was to keep the people abreast with the work of their representatives, developments inside the House and dynamics outside, through media, which is vital in a parliamentary democracy.”

Download PDF

Calcutta High Court slams ECI for inaction, restrains BJP from publishing ads in any form of media

How free is free and can there be freedom without responsibility: Courts on media coverage of trials, erring conduct of anchors

Secularism under siege: post-election realities for Indian Muslims

The post Editors’ Guild urges government to remove COVID-19 era restrictions on journalists covering parliamentary proceedings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Media fraternity stands with Nikhil Wagle after attack, EGI, PCI, NWMI release statements in support

sabrang — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:44:35 +0000

A day after senior journalist Nikhil Wagles’s car was attacked while he and two others were going to speak at an event titled Nirbhay Bano in Pune, the Editors Guild of India (EGI) issued a strong statement condemning the attack. Also, both the Press Club of India and the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) have vehemently condemned the assault on senior journalist Wagle. The Guild has called on the law enforcement authorities and the government of Maharashtra to take action against the culprits immediately.

EGI statement on attack against journalist Nikhil Wagle in the city of Pune on Friday pic.twitter.com/vZyIHYZTRR

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) February 10, 2024

Both the Press Club of India and the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) have vehemently condemned the assault on senior journalist Wagle.

Simultaneously, the NWMI has also highlighted how there is a concerning pattern of intolerance exhibited by the BJP towards journalists who dare to question the party. The use of brute force to stifle dissent, as witnessed in Wagle’s case, the statement argues, a part of the party’s unwillingness to engage in civilised debate.

NWMI has urged authorities to take immediate and urgent action against the culprits who organised the attack on Wagle. Moreover, the NWMI’s statement further described that the assault on Wagle is a manifestation of a broader issue which is the growing targeting of journalists in India for practising journalism.

We at @NWM_India strongly condemn the assault on senior journalist @waglenikhil in Pune on Friday, and extend unwavering support to him. This assault is further evidence of the BJP’s recurring pattern of intolerance toward journalists. https://t.co/penlDE661d

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) February 10, 2024

Meanwhile, news reports have further come in that there is another FIR filed against Wagle. The Indian Express has reported that this time, more people, which includes the organiser of the Nirbhay Bano event at the Rashtra Seva Dal premises in Pune are the subjects of an FIR. According to the report, a police constable named Aniruddha Anerao filed the FIR for allegedly violating a police notice. The FIR also has included members of different parties, including Dhiraj Ghate, the Pune unit chief of the BJP and with 250 party members, Arvind Shinde, the Congress party city chief, Prashant Jagtap from the Sharad Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party, and Sanjay More from Shiv Sena.

Govandi slum demolition: Temporary halt after protests outside BMC office by residents, those rendered homeless to rebuild their homes at the same site

The Reign of Unfreedom: IIT-Bombay & the cancellation of the Dr Ganesh Devy lecture

The post Media fraternity stands with Nikhil Wagle after attack, EGI, PCI, NWMI release statements in support appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

sabrang — Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:39:34 +0000

In a clear-cut and strong submission to the union minister for Information & Broadcasting, Anurag Thakur, the Editors Guild of India has detailed how the provisions of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023 are both vague and excessively intrusive, adverse to both the freedom of expression and freedom of press.

Presenting its detailed submissions on the Bill, a press statement of the EGI states that it is “concerned that many of the provisions of the draft are vague and excessively intrusive. Since the bill will cover all broadcasting services, including news broadcasting, and also extend the regulatory framework to cover digital news platforms, the Guild is deeply concerned that the bill will therefore be adverse to the spirit of freedom of speech and freedom of press guaranteed by the constitution. Some of the salient points of concern are:

The draft outlines an overbearing system of self-regulation by mandating creating of content evaluation committees in ways that can allow the government to exercise a great degree of control on these
The draft further allows the Union Government to monitor and block content by establishing a Broadcast Advisory Council, to be headed by a bureaucrat, and therefore create an over-arching censorship
The bill allows the government to regulate, or even prohibit the transmission of channels or programmes on vague
Provisions that allow government excessive delegation of rule-making are also problematic as they lead to uncertainty for the stakeholders who may be impacted by the draft bill and prevent individuals from being fully informed so as to meaningfully engage in the consultation process”

Details of the Guild’s objections to specific clauses are contained in the annexure that has been prepared with support from the Internet Freedom Foundation. For the purposes of these comments, the term “broadcasters” will be used to mean “broadcasters and broadcasting network operators.”

Hence, the Guild has requested that the Modi 2.0 government puts the draft in abeyance and undertake meaningful consultation with all the stakeholders.

The Editors Guild of India [“EGI”] is an organisation established in 1978 to protect freedom of the press and to raise the standards of editorial leadership of newspapers and magazines. It was on November 10, 2023, that the I & B ministry had released the draft of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, and invited comments and feedback from the public on the same.

Clause by Clause Objections raised by the Editor’s Guild of India

no.

Particulars

Views/Comments/Suggestions/Remarks/Recommendations

Clause 4(5)

Clause 4(5) allows the Union Government to “make provisions for the regulation of services other than broadcasting services that are intricately linked to broadcasting networks or broadcasting services”. Such excessive delegation of rule-making leads to uncertainty for the stakeholders who may be impacted by the draft bill and prevents individuals from being

fully informed so as to meaningfully engage in the consultation process. This instance of delegated legislation gives extensive powers to the Union Government for future rule-making. In the absence of relevant safeguards to protect against arbitrary rule-making, such instances of delegated legislation may lead to uncertainty in the industry.

Clause 19

Clause 19 states that the Programme Code and Advertisement Code

(“Codes”), “as may be prescribed” by the Union Government, will be different for different broadcast services mentioned in the draft bill as well as any other category of broadcasting service notified by the government. Clause 5(1)(b) imposes an obligation on broadcasters to transmit or re- transmit broadcasting service in conformity with the Codes. Contravention of the Codes by the “OTT” broadcasters will amount to up to Rs. 20,000 for the first contravention, and up to Rs. 1,00,000 for the subsequent contravention. The prescription of the Codes at a later stage may introduce difficulties for companies to foresee the extent of their compliance burden.

An obligation on “OTT” and digital news broadcasters to adhere to the ethical Codes has the potential to significantly impede online free speech, as the Codes currently applicable to Cable TV entail notably restrictive instructions. For instance, the Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 states that no programme should be carried in the cable service which “Offends against good taste or decency”, “Contains

attack on religions or communities….”, “Contains anything obscene…”, “Denigrates women….”, “Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups”, and “Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country”.¹ Subjecting online curated content to such constraining Codes, which contains exceedingly vague and ambiguous grounds for restricting speech, will forever inhibit the creative and artistic freedom currently exercised by artists. This will work towards formalising the ‘moral policing’ and censorship of content currently imposed

informally and indirectly.² Limiting our comments and suggestions to

“OTT” broadcasters and individuals/ companies publishing digital news media, we urge the Ministry to acknowledge the dangers of empowering the regulators, including the executive, with such a hazardous tool of censorship and request them to exclude the online content curation space as well as the news/ current affairs publishers from being subject to these Codes.

Clause 20

Adherence to the Codes extends to any person who broadcasts news and current affairs programs through a digital medium (such as online paper, news portal, website, social media intermediary, or other similar medium) as part of a systematic business, professional, or commercial activity. This excludes publishers of professional or commercial newspapers and online replicas of such newspapers. Clause 20 fails to precisely and specifically define “news and current affairs programme” and “systematic business, professional, or commercial activity”, making it a vague, overbroad, and worrisome provision. Clause 20(2) states that the provision of the Act applicable to “OTT” broadcasters shall also apply to news and current affairs broadcasters. What is unclear is if a threshold for number of subscribers or viewers will also be prescribed for this category of broadcasters.

As per the First Schedule, contravention of the Codes by the “OTT” broadcasters will amount to up to Rs. 20,000 for the first contravention, and up to Rs. 1,00,000 for the subsequent contravention. Clause 20 along with the penalty stated under the First Schedule may have wide ranging consequences on independent journalists who rely on the digital platforms such as social media to publish news that may typically be viewed as unpalatable to the government. This over broad provision will apply to not only journalists, but even individuals who choose to share news through online blogs or platforms. Regulatory powers to censure or prohibit content published by news broadcasters extend beyond the permissible restrictions on free expression allowed under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

This Clause raises alarm as an individual sharing news on social media platforms may become liable if the broadcaster/ broadcasting network, self regulatory organisation, or a government appointed council believe that they have not complied with the Codes. If a Code similar to the ones notified under the Cable TV Rules, which includes excessively vague and overbroad restrictions on free speech on grounds such as “Contains anything affecting the integrity of the Nation”, “ promote anti-national

attitudes”, etc., is applied to individuals sharing news and current affairs through digital mediums, it will cause an irreparable impact on online free speech as well as the freedom of journalistic expression of a news broadcaster or an independent news disseminator. In the Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) judgement, regarding restrictions and regulations on newspapers and its effect on free speech, the Supreme Court of India found that freedom of the press was an essential element of Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an express mention of such freedoms

as a special category was irrelevant.³ In Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court noted that “Where a law purports to authorise the imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting such right, it is not possible to uphold it even so far as it may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is not severable.”⁴ Thus, only such reasonably defined, specified, and narrow restrictions must be included in Codes which fall under the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Further, such regulation may also threaten a users’ right to access multiple, diverse points of view because the individual broadcasting news will

likely only produce content which is palatable to the Union government so as to avoid non-compliance penalty.

It is worth noting that the definition of “OTT broadcasting service” [Clause 2(y)] does not include a “social media intermediary, or a user of such intermediary, as defined in rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or such other entities as may be notified by the Central Government”. However, Clause 20(1) clearly states that individuals broadcasting programs through a social media intermediary will be liable to adhere to the Codes. This contradiction creates ambiguity over the application of the bill to such platforms. This is also indicative of the discriminatory application of the bill, wherein only news and current affairs programs broadcasted on social media platforms are brought under regulation. Given that social media platforms are a means for journalists, especially independent and small scale journalists, to disseminate relatively uncensored news, the extension of regulation to such platforms may deepen restrictions to free speech.The summary of the 1995 Supreme Court Judgement on Airwaves in the case between the Union of India & Cricket Association of Bengal clearly outlines the need to maintain impartiality while regulating broadcasting media, especially the delivery of news, to preserve the right to receive and impart information.⁵ Part 3(b) of the summary states, “The right of free speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an “aware” citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive at informed judgement on all issues touching them. This cannot be provided by a medium controlled by a monopoly – whether the monopoly is of the State

or any other individual, group or organisation. As a matter of fact, private broadcasting stations may perhaps be more prejudicial to free speech right of the citizens than the government controlled media, as explained in the body of the judgement. The broadcasting media should be under the control of the public as distinct from Government. This is the command

implicit in Article 19 (1) (a). It should be operated by a public statutory corporation or corporations, as the case may be, whose constitution and composition must be such as to ensure its/ their impartiality in political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues. It/they must be required by law to present news, views and opinions in a balanced way ensuring pluralism and diversity of opinions and views. It/they must provide equal access to all the citizens and groups to avail of the medium.”

Thus, the MIB must not transgress this Supreme Court judgement and restructure the regulatory mechanism such that the independence of the broadcasters and news publishers are safeguarded from executive intrusion.

Clause 21

The obligation on broadcasters to self-classify and rate content based on its context, themes, tone, impact, and target audience will significantly increase compliance burden on their part. Moreover, depending on the guidelines issued by the Union government on classification of these categories, the visibility, reach, and consumption rate of the content may be adversely affected.

Clause 22

Similar concerns around visibility, reach, and consumption of the content arise around the suggested access control measures given the obligation to restrict viewing for certain programmes categorised as such. What kind(s) of, how frequently, and on what basis content will be restricted depends on guidelines issued by the government.

Clause 24

(1)

A three-tiered regulatory structure has been proposed for ensuring compliance and for grievance redressal. Quite similar to the structure proposed under the Cable TV Act, it claims to be reliant on an predominantly ‘self-regulatory’ structure. However, the executive oversight and government interference, especially at the third tier, reflects the language of ‘co-regulation’, but in a much more skewed power dynamic.

Such a three-tiered regulatory system was introduced under Part 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules, 2021”). This structure was created without any statutory basis or any public consultation. The allotment of such wide powers to the Union government in the absence of any constitutional or parliamentary backing posed a grave threat to the freedom of speech and expression of content creators and publishers, as well as to the right of free access to information of the consumers of such content. The constitutionality of this part of the IT Rules, 2021 has been

challenged in several Courts.⁶ The bill does not explicitly state if it is meant to replace or overhaul this part of the IT Rules, 2021.

Given the challenge to Part 3 of the IT Rules, which is administered by the MIB, we must question the attempt to bring a similar model of regulation and grievance redressal for “OTT” content and digital news media as well as the imposition of other obligations on broadcasters such as the need to ‘intimate’ the Union government. A similar obligation was imposed on publishers of news media by the Ministry, to furnish information under Rule 18 of the IT Rules, 2021, despite a stay on the Rules that lay out the 3-tier regulatory mechanism.⁷ While there was no stay on the Rule that allows the MIB to seek this information, there is a stay on the Rules that lay out the 3-tier regulatory mechanism, which is the purpose of seeking such information in the first place. The extent to which the Broadcasting Bill will alter the discourse and landscape of the IT Rules challenge remains to be observed.

Clause 24

(2)

In addition to this, every broadcaster or operator would be required to constitute one or more “Content Evaluation Committee” (“CEC”), the size, quorum, and operational details of which would be determined by the Union government. As per the draft bill, broadcasters could only broadcast programmes that have been certified by the CEC. Broadcasting un- certified programmes will lead to a penalty of Rs. 100 lakhs and Rs. 500 lakhs for subsequent contravention within 3 years [First Schedule]. Clause 24(2)(a) requires the CEC to have members representing social groups such as “women, child welfare, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes,

minorities etc.” While the intention to have diversity in the Committee is appreciated, the technical competence and expertise of these members to evaluate a diverse range of curated content may be questioned. It is fair to assume that most companies already have in place a mechanism to evaluate content. Thus, the State’s involvement in the certification process seems unnecessary and dangerous.

Additionally, the burden to mandatorily disclose names and other details of the members of the CEC may put these members under considerable safety risks, both online and physical spaces. Documented instances of platforms proactively censoring content in order to avoid conflict with the Union government sheds light on potential threats to free speech resulting from such mandated disclosure.⁸ As per the First Schedule, failure to

publicise the names, credentials and other details of members of CEC will amount to an initial penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs and a subsequent penalty of Rs. 250 lakhs if the contravention is repeated within 3 years. The risk of facing such high monetary penalties further accentuates the risks arising from disclosing personal details. Given the wide ranging compliance requirements under this provision, it may result in creation of entry barriers, increased compliance cost, and disruptions in the ease of doing business, especially for small and medium scale broadcasters. Thus, the feasibility and practicality of such a compliance heavy provision must be viewed with caution. Moreover, such disclosure requirements should be encouraged, rather than mandated, only after conducting necessary risk assessments, instead of penalising non-compliance with heavy penalties.

Clause 25

Under the Broadcasting Bill, a broadcaster or operator would be required to appoint a grievance redressal officer for the purpose of receiving and

hearing complaints in contravention of the Codes, become a member of an SRO, establish and maintain suitable mechanisms for the filing and redress of complaints, and publish information related to complaint redressal mechanisms prominently [Clause 25(1)].

Clause 26

As per the functions listed under the Broadcasting Bill, the SROs will address grievances which have not been addressed by the broadcaster or broadcasting network operators within the prescribed time period, hear appeals filed by complainants against the decision of the latter, and issue guidance or advisories to its members for ensuring compliance to the Codes [Clause 26(3)]. An SRO will also be required to make governing norms and articles for its members, which would include punishment for non-compliance with the norms or the Codes. The punishment includes temporary suspension, expulsion from membership, advisory, warning, censure, and/or monetary fine up to 5 lakhs [Clause 26(4)]. Through the standards and practices formulated and adopted by the BAC, the Union government will be able to exercise indirect control over curated content.

Clause 27

The Broadcasting Bill allows the Union government to constitute the BAC consisting of an independent member with 25 years of experience in the media industry as the Chairperson; 5 ex officio officers representing MIB, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; and 5 additional eminent independent persons [Clause 27(1)]. The BAC, in essence, replicates a structure similar to the Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC) constituted by the MIB for the regulation of Cable TV.⁹ Also substantively composed of government officials, the IMC

functions in a recommendatory capacity and has the power to suggest penalty and other content modification decisions to the Union Government. The composition of the BAC, which predominantly includes government representatives, raises questions around its decision making expertise with respect to online curated content, its transparency and accountability, and its diversity.

The terms and conditions related to the appointment of members to the BAC, the manner of their selection, tenure, and the manner of performance of their functions are yet to be prescribed. The BAC may refer any appeal or reference to review panels constituted by it. The current composition of the BAC raises concerns around the Council’s autonomy.

Clause 27(5) gives the BAC the power to co-opt any number of additional members, who shall have the right to attend the meetings and take part in its proceedings but shall not have the right to vote. Notably, no criteria or qualifications have been provided for co-opting such members, opening the position to possibly anyone who the BAC members may deem fit.

Interestingly, members co-opted with the approval or recommendation of the Union Government, shall have the right to vote. Thus, through this provision, the Union Government will be able to directly influence and even change the decision of the BAC, while also being able to evade the accountability and transparency obligations applicable to other non-co- opted BAC members. The apparent executive control paves the way for a toothless and unaccountable BAC.

Clause 28

The BAC may hear appeals filed by complainants against the decision of the SROs as well as the complaints regarding violation or contravention of the Codes referred to it by the Union government [28(1)]. After examining complaints, the BAC has to make recommendations to the Union government, which will then issue appropriate orders and directions [Clause 28(2),(3)]. The ability of the Union government to refer a complaint to a government-appointed body as well as the power to issue final order is likely to pave the way for censorship as well as self- censorship.

In light of increasing scrutiny of streaming platforms, the Union government oversight over the BAC and CEC raise censorship concerns.¹⁰ Here, the MIB’s Expert Committee recommendation for a more liberalised regime even for film certification and its caution against the Central Board of Film Certification acting as a ‘moral compass’ must be remembered and applied. The Union government must take inspiration from the recommendation given by the Expert Committee and steer away from dictating modifications and deletions.

Clause 30

and 31

Clause 30 empowers the Union Government or agency so authorised by it or authorised officer, with the right to inspect broadcasting networks and services. Upon instruction, the operator of broadcasting network or broadcasting services will be required to provide the necessary “equipment, services and facilities at designated place or places for lawful interception or continuous monitoring at its own cost under the supervision of the Central Government or agency so authorised by it or authorised officer.” Clause 31 allows the Union government’s power to inspect, intercept, monitor, and seize the equipment of broadcasting networks and services. The power to inspect, intercept, and monitor cable network and services and to seize equipment used for operating cable television networks were added to the Cable TV Act by way of an amendment in 2011. Clause 30 in the Broadcasting Bill is more or less identical to Section 10(A) of the Cable TV Act. Interestingly, the Cable TV Act includes a safeguard in the confiscation provision (Section 12), which states that the cable operator from whom the equipment has been seized may be liable to confiscation unless the operator registers himself as a cable operator. However, the exemption provision appears to be considerably narrower in the Broadcasting Bill, under which the broadcasting network will not be considered liable for confiscation only if they demonstrate ‘compliance with the provisions of this Act’. Thus, a broadcasting network will be required to comply with each and every direction of the regulatory authorities as well as the Union government directions, orders, and/or penalties, in addition to intimating/ registering with the Union government. The plethora of compliances introduced under the Broadcasting Bill will thus make it extremely difficult for such broadcasters to become exempt from confiscation.

Both Clauses include a safeguard provision of the obligation to provide reasonable notice, and under Clause 31, the obligation to do so in writing, informing them of the grounds of confiscation, a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing, as well as an opportunity to appeal the decision of the authorised officer to the court.

The application of such powers on “OTT” broadcasting services raises valid questions and concerns around the executive’s indirect control over the platforms. Moreover, the Union Government’s or their appointed officer’s power to intercept, monitor, inspect, and seize equipment may be misused to create a chilling effect and an environment of fear among the broadcasters, including news creators. The ambiguity around the scope of these powers, i.e. to what kinds of equipment and for how long can they be intercepted, monitored, inspected, and seized, especially in the context of “OTT” broadcasters and new publishers, further augments our fears around imposition of speech restrictions through indirect coercion or fear. In the absence of explicit safeguards and specificities, such provisions may be misused to create an environment of fear and forced adherence among broadcasters. The existence of such extreme powers along with the overbroad penalties for non-compliance will inevitably lead to self- censorship.

Clause 35

and 36

Clause 35 allows the Union government to order the broadcaster or the network to delete or modify programme or advertisement and even direct the channel to be off-air for a specified number of hours as a penalty for violating the Codes. The Union government cements its censorship powers under the draft bill through Clause 36(2), read with Clause 5(1)(d), under which it may, in public interest, prohibit the operation of any broadcasting services or broadcasting network operators in the areas notified. The Union government cements its censorship powers under the draft bill through Clause 36(2) under which it may, if it deems it necessary or expedient to do so in public interest, prohibit the operation of any broadcasting services or broadcasting network operators in the areas notified. The language in Clause 35 and 36 is very similar to the language in Section 19 of the Cable TV Act, which also empowers the authorised officer or Union Government with such draconian powers.

In early 2022, the Union Government blocked the broadcasting of the popular Malayalam language news channel, Media One, for the second time, citing ‘security reasons’.¹¹ The government failed to state, both publicly and directly to the channel, the reasons and grounds for the blocking. This is an example of how such draconian powers can be

misused in the absence of relevant safeguards and checks. While on one hand the judiciary has protected speech, by quashing the ban on Media One citing concerns around “chilling effect on free speech and particularly on press freedom”, on other instances, artistic creativity and freedom has also been unfairly stifled by the judiciary, wherein it chose to block certain provocative or dissenting pieces of content while not blocking other propaganda pieces, displaying an inconsistent application of grounds for blocking.¹² The Broadcasting Bill is unfortunately indicative of a missed opportunity of liberalisation, with a clear inclination towards paternalistic approach of regulation resulting in censorship and government control.¹³

Programme and Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/pc1_0.pdf
Gerry Shih and Anant Gupta, “Facing pressure in India, Netflix and Amazon back down on daring films”, The Washington Post, November 20, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/20/india-netflix-amazon-movies-self-censorship/.
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757,

https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/bennett-coleman-co-v-union-of-india/.

Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras [1950] AIR 124, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/.
Union of India & Cricket Association of Bengal (1995). https://mib.gov.in/document/supreme-court- judgement-airwaves
Amala Dasarathi and Tanmay Singh, “Supreme Court stays proceedings before High Courts challenging IT Rules, 2021, interim orders to continue”, Internet Freedom Foundation, May 09, 2022.

https://internetfreedom.in/supreme-court-stays-proceedings-before-high-courts-challenging-it-rules-2021-interim-orders-to-continue/.

Tanmay Singh, “News publishers furnish their details voluntarily, MIB claims in RTI Appeal”, Internet Freedom Foundation, March 15, 2022. https://internetfreedom.in/rule-18-it-rules-rti-appeal/.
Lata Jha, “OTT platforms in a fix over offensive int’l content”, Mint, May 27, 2023.

https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/afwaahon-ka-safar-sunny-deol-reacts-on-drunk-viral-video- 11701855316424.html.

See also: Gerry Shih and Anant Gupta, “Facing pressure in India, Netflix and Amazon back down on daring films”, The Washington Post, November 20, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/20/india- netflix-amazon-movies-self-censorship/.
See also: Apar Gupta and Anushka Jain, “Tandav is a Case Study for OTT censorship under the IT Rules, 2021 #LetUsChill”, March 27, 2021. https://internetfreedom.in/tandav-case-study/.
Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 869 answered by the MIB dated 09, February, 2017. https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/242/Au869.pdf.
Reuters, “Worried about obscenity, India asks OTT platforms for content checks”, Business Standard, July 14, 2023, https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/worried-about-obscenity-india-asks-ott-platforms-for-content-checks- html.
“Centre blocks MediaOne broadcasting over unspecified security reasons”, Madhyamam, January 31, 2022. https://english.madhyamam.com/india/keralas-mediaone-news-channel-blocked-by-the-union-govt-922548.
Ananthakrishnan G, “SC quashes ban on Media One: ‘Chilling effect’ on free press”, The Indian Express, April 6, 2023. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/malayalam-news-channel-media-one-ban-supreme-court-

kerala-high-court-8539227/.

See also: “Supreme Court refuses to ban Sudarshan TV show for now”, The New Indian Express, August 29, 2020. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/aug/29/supreme-court-refuses-to-ban- sudarshan-tv-show-for-now-2189828.html.
Mohul Ghosh, “Govt Wants To Regulate Netflix, Prime, Hotstar & Other OTTs; New Bill Also Allows Govt To Run Ads On Digital & OTT Platforms”, Trak.in, November 19, 2023. https://trak.in/stories/govt-wants-to- regulate-netflix-prime-hotstar-new-bill-also-allows-govt-to-run-ads-on-digital-ott-platforms/#google_vignette.

The post Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Supreme Court shields Editors Guild of India after multiple FIRs filed for Manipur Reportage

sabrang — Wed, 06 Sep 2023 12:25:19 +0000

On Wednesday afternoon the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection from arrest to four members of the Editors Guild of India who currently face multiple FIRs filed by Manipur police. These FIRs were filed after a fact-finding report was published by the EGI members that was on the recent ethnic violence that has shaken the north-eastern state of Manipur. The Chief Minister of Manipur N Biren Singh had told media that his government had filed an FIR against the president and 3 Guild members for “trying to incite ethnic clashes”. The Chief Minister has earlier labelled the guild as anti-national and anti-state.

#WATCH | The State government has filed an FIR against the members of the Editors Guild who are trying to create more clashes in the state of Manipur, says CM N Biren Singh. pic.twitter.com/gm2RssgoHL

— ANI (@ANI) September 4, 2023

The EGI defines itself as a premier, non-partisan association of editorial leaders across India and in its statement to the public, the EGI has stated that they had received “representation” from various civil society as well as the Indian Army that there was partisan and biased media coverage of Manipur.

EGI statement on the FIRs.

Statement by the Executive Committee of the Editors Guild of India on the FIRs registered by the Manipur police against the Guild, as well as the intimidatory remarks made by the Chief Minister of Manipur pic.twitter.com/MHvrYT8ufj

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) September 5, 2023

At today’s hearing the EGI members were represented by senior Advocate Shyam Divan who conveyed their concerns to the bench, comprising of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Consequently, the bench issued a notice to the State of Manipur regarding the writ petition filed by the EGI members and also scheduled a hearing for the upcoming Monday, according to LiveLaw.

The main issue revolves around the EGI’s fact-finding report. This report was released in New Delhi last week following the committee’s visit to Manipur, has garnered substantial attention. It criticised media coverage of the ethnic violence as one-sided and also accused the state leadership of displaying partiality in the conflict. The EGI has stated that the government should have maintained a neutral stance, representing the entire state impartially.

The president of the EGI, along with three editors, Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan, and Sanjay Kapoor had gone on a visit to Manipur last month. Their aim was to closely examine media coverage of the ethnic violence in the region.

The FIRs filed against the EGI members also pinpointed a specific error within the report, according to Deccan Herald. The FIRs pointed that the report had inaccurately captioned a photograph of a burning building in Manipur’s Churachandpur district as a “Kuki house.” In reality, the building in question was a Forest Department office that had been set ablaze by a mob on May 3, coinciding with the outbreak of large-scale violence in the district and other parts of Manipur.

Promptly addressing this error, the EGI acknowledged it on the social media platform X. They assured that the error in the photo caption was being rectified, and an updated report with the corrected information would replace the incorrect version.

There was an error in a photo caption in the report released on Sep 2. The same is being rectified and updated report will be uploaded on the link shortly. We regret the error that crept in at the photo editing stage

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) September 3, 2023

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim protection now sets a precedent for the protection of a free press from state prosecution.

Manipur has been gripped by ethnic violence for more than four months, resulting in the tragic loss of 170 lives, with 700 individuals sustaining injuries. Additionally, this conflict has forced approximately 70,000 people from the Meitei and Kuki communities to be displaced.

A fair media can defang intolerance

TO BE LIKE RIVERS- Reimagining India in Authoritarian Times, a soul cry from India’s North East

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

The post Supreme Court shields Editors Guild of India after multiple FIRs filed for Manipur Reportage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

sabrang — Tue, 05 Sep 2023 06:55:51 +0000

The state police have invoked Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act even though the provision has been struck down by the Supreme Court. On multiple occasions, the apex court has directed that nobody should be prosecuted under the provision.

The entire issue revolves around the role of the media, and it is evident that the Editor’s Guild did a commendable job by sending a fact finding team to check the ground situation and information which are being suppressed, says the statement.

Further, it adds that, this action amounts to a strong arm tactic by the state government which amounts to intimidation of the apex media body of the country.

At a time when violence-marred Manipur needs utmost attention of the government, such a move by the state government would only make the matters worse and would be seen as a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth. It is a case of shooting the messenger rather than taking measures to restore peace in the state.

The statement signed by Umakant Lakhera (President) and Vinay Kumar (Secretary) has demanded that the FIR against the EGI President and the three members be withdrawn immediately.

A tweet by the EGI also condemns this action which amounts to a criminalising of journalism.

The Manipur government on Monday said an FIR was filed against four members of the Editors Guild of India (EGI) for “trying to create more clashes in the state”.

Addressing media persons in the state capital, Imphal, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh said that a first information report (FIR) is registered against the EGI’s president and three others.

The CM said that their report was biased and they did not meet all the groups in the state. “They arrived at an incorrect conclusion,” Singh alleged.

Singh said that this kind of report by the EGI report would create more problems in Manipur, which is rocked by ethnic violence for over four months, killing 170 people and injuring 700 while displacing around 70,000 people from Meitei and Kuki communities.

A three-member fact-finding team of the EGI after visiting Manipur, published its report in New
Delhi last week, claiming that the media’s reports on the ethnic violence were “one-sided”. The report accused the state leadership of being “partisan”.

“It should have avoided taking sides in the ethnic conflict but it failed to do its duty as a democratic government which should have represented the entire state,” the 24-page EGI report said in its conclusions and recommendations.

The FIR was filed at the Imphal police station on the complaint of N Sarat Singh who claimed to be a social worker.

Stark abdication by an absent state, paucity of basic necessities & poor, unhygienic conditions in relief camps: Manipur

SC transfers CBI cases related to Manipur violence to Assam, asks Gauhati HC CJI to choose trial judges

SC-Appointed Panel Calls for Reconstruction of Lost Documents, Compensation Scheme: Manipur

“Who gains? Who loses?”- An interim report on Manipur violence, resilience, relief and rehabilitation

Manipur urgently needs the healing touch, prompt political intervention: former bureaucrats

The post Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Editors Guild of India sends fact-finding team to Agartala

Mon, 29 Nov 2021 05:51:25 +0000

Image Courtesy:thenortheastaffairs.com

The Editors Guild of India (EGI) is sending a three-member fact-finding team to Agartala to investigate the many reports of draconian criminal laws that have been invoked against media, and thus preventing journalist from reporting on the aftermath and the reasons behind the recent communal violence in Tripura. The EGI issued a statement signed by Seema Mustafa, president, Sanjay Kapoor, general secretary and Anant Nath, treasurer, detailing its team of senior journalists Bharat Bhushan, Pradip Phanjoubam and Sanjay Kapoor. The team is expected to meet government officials, media persons as well as members of the civil society.

Tripura Police had imposed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against 102 social media handles, including journalists who reported or merely commented on news of the alleged attacks on mosques and the violence that ensued. The statement may be read here:

Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb tells DGP to “review” UAPA cases

Over three weeks later, on Sunday November 28, Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Kumar Deb has instructed Director General of Police V S Yadav to “review” the UAPA cases against social media accounts, and submit a report. In turn, stated news reports Yadav directed the Crime Branch, which is now investigating these cases, to review them. According to Indian Express, an unnamed senior official of the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) said, “There was a conspiracy to disturb the law and order in Tripura a few days back through fake photos and videos of alleged arson at mosques on social media. In order to bring the situation under control and maintain communal harmony, Tripura Police filed cases against 102 people, including some journalists and lawyers.”

Journalists reporting from Tripura’s are under a scanner

When the UAPA had been invoked the EGI had expressed shock at the action initiated against journalists who were “reporting and writing on the recent communal violence”. Various journalists covering the aftermath of Tripura’s communal violence have so far been questioned, detained, arrested, even allegedly attacked for doing their jobs.

The latest was journalist Ali Akbar Lashkar (27), who works for the Kolkata-based Bengali news portal Ab Tak Khabar. He had come to Tripura on morning, to report on the situation in the state, after TMC leader Saayoni Ghosh, was arrested and accused of criminal conspiracy and attempt to murder, but was allegedly attacked by a mob “I have come to Tripura for the first time and I was attacked… imagine how scared the locals must be,” he said.

The post Editors Guild of India sends fact-finding team to Agartala appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pegasus scandal: SC says serious allegations if reports are true

Thu, 05 Aug 2021 08:31:12 +0000

Image Courtesy:newsbytesapp.com

In a very crucial hearing before the Supreme Court today, August 5, the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, led Bench directed all parties to serve copies of their respective petitions to the central government. CJI Ramana clarified that the hearing cannot continue without the presence of the central government, and posted the matter for August 10. The Bench also consisting of Justice Surya Kant observed that the Pegasus allegations are “serious” if news reports regarding the same are true.

A total of 9 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the Pegasus scandal. Five journalists, who have allegedly been directly targeted through Pegasus, namely Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, S.N.M. Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shataksi, approached the Supreme Court a few days ago for relief. They have contended that they have been directly subjected to “deeply intrusive surveillance” and a forensic examination done by Amnesty International on their mobile phones have revealed interference.

Their petition explains how the Pegasus spyware can be installed on a target’s mobile device to mine or plant data, without their knowledge, consent, or any action on their part. It also states that there is also no way short of a detailed forensic analysis by a highly skilled lab for an affected citizen to even know if their phone has been infected and compromised by the Pegasus malware.

The plea explains that after infiltration and installation, the malware takes control of the target’s phone and can then collect data, view contact lists, messages, and internet browsing history, intercept communications, remotely control peripherals such as turning on the phone’s camera and microphone, use GPS functions to track a target’s location and movements, track SMSs, emails, WhatsApp chats, calendar, contacts book, photos and videos etc.

The petition also submits that the Pegasus spyware is constantly evolving, and, therefore, the version of the Spyware detected on approximately 1,400 phones in 2019, and 50,000 phones in 2021, was more complicated and dangerous than the one identified in 2016. This is because, from 2018 onwards, Pegasus used the “zero-click” method, as found by Amnesty International Security’s Lab in its report dated August 8, 2021.

The writ petition reads, “The zero-click method uses a remote cyber-attack which does not require any interaction from the target. Simply put, a device can be attacked without needing the target to click on a malicious link. This is done by successfully exploiting vulnerabilities in the software and hardware of the phone. Once the attacker has found a vulnerability that they can exploit, they craft special data — such as a hidden text message or image file, to inject code in the target’s device. This compromises the device.”

Their plea also refers to the past responses of the Government with regards to surveillance. It mentions the statement made by the then Minister of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), Ravi Shankar Prasad, who had made an elaborate statement without categorically addressing the issue of surveillance using Pegasus. Instead of categorically confirming or denying the allegations or providing a concrete response to these questions of using Pegasus on Indians, the Minister at the time spoke about the successful digital ecosystem of the country, permissible restrictions on privacy, and India’s legal framework of surveillance.

The plea states that he had also told the House, “Government is required to balance the competing interests of privacy and national security and that whenever the Government or its agencies which are authorized – I repeat it – if they have to do so for the safety and security of India, they do so only as per the Standard Operating Procedure.” He insisted that the Government engages in “authorized surveillance” only.

The petition states that since hacking using a military-grade technology on a smartphone, which falls within the definitions of ‘computer’ and ‘computer system’ as under Section 2 of the IT Act, is ex facie illegal and violates the Information Technology Act, as it involves accessing a computer/computer system by introducing a ‘contaminant’ or ‘virus’; damaging the device and extracting data without permission of the owner of the device, thorough investigation is required. “Pegasus therefore is a ‘computer virus’ and a ‘computer contaminant’ as under the IT Act since it is designed to attach itself to a targeted device, and then modify, record and transmit data from the targeted devices”, reads the petition.

The journalists have also stated that Pegasus cannot be classified as a “form of legitimate or authorised surveillance” permitted under Section 69 of the IT Act or even Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, read with the relevant Rules, “as it goes much beyond the mere interception, monitoring, or decryption of messages. It falls entirely beyond the, arguably unconstitutional, existing regime of lawful surveillance and does not even offer the limited safeguards afforded therein to aggrieved persons.”

It also states that the central government has failed to unequivocally refuse the assertions that it did not enter into contracts for purchase of Pegasus spyware or otherwise sanction its use, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the hacking was the result of actions traceable to public servants, and it is incumbent upon the government to furnish information to identify the source of what it claims was an illegal executive action.

The petitioners have stated that this illegal surveillance has a chilling effect on their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and “casts an even darker and nearly indelible shadow of intrusion upon persons and renders the enjoyment of their fundamental rights impossible by aggrieved persons.”

Thus, they have requested the court to declare the installation and/or use of malware or spyware such as Pegasus is illegal, and issue a direction, directing the government to produce and disclose to the court and the petitioners all materials and documents with respect to all investigation, authorisation, and/or order(s) pertaining to the use of Pegasus.

Editors Guild of India’s PIL

The Editors Guild of India (EGI), on the other hand, has sought for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigation into the alleged spying of around 300 Indians including many incumbent and former ministers, a Supreme Court judge, journalists, lawyers, human rights activists and others.

Their plea has requested the court to direct the Centre to produce all orders that it allegedly issued authorising the interception, monitoring and decryption of electronic communication devices of the Indian citizens under the relevant law and rules. It has also asked for the Union to disclose if they procured license, or use the spyware Pegasus from NSO Group or its group companies and/or affiliates on Indian citizens.

The PIL also seeks from the court to, “Direct the Union of India to disclose the details of how many of the Indian Citizens who have been under electronic surveillance, hacking, or otherwise spied on, were charged with indulging in serious crime.” Alleging that Pegasus by its very design, can never pass the tests of necessity and proportionality, EGI’s PIL states that the privacy of the citizens of the country has been infringed and the Union of India has in reality, failed to act to safeguard this fundamental right.

The plea also points out that in the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight, electronic surveillance gives the executive government the power to influence the subject of surveillance as well as all classes of persons, and that there is a severe threat to public safety at the very least, and potential threat to national security. The plea also reads, “hacking and electronic surveillance through spyware cannot be a suitable means for furthering any legitimate goal of the state in public safety or national security.”

Besides the aggrieved journalists and EGI, veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar had also filed a PIL before the Apex Court last week. John Brittas, a Rajya Sabha member too, moved the top court seeking a court monitored probe into the surveillance allegations. SabrangIndia has filed a detailed report on the contents of their petitions that may be read here.

Two PILs have also been filed by Jagdeep S Chhokar, Narendra Mishra and Advocate ML Sharma.

The post Pegasus scandal: SC says serious allegations if reports are true appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Withdraw advisory on live reporting in J&K: EGI

Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:08:11 +0000

Image Curtesy:kashmirobserver.net

Withdraw Kashmir Police’s advisory forbidding journalists from reporting live encounters with militants, demanded the Editors Guild of India (EGI) on April 17, 2021.

The EGI dismissed the superficial argument stating that such coverage can “incite violence” or promote “anti-national sentiment” when in reality, “nothing can be further from the truth.” It pointed out that live reporting from conflict areas, especially involving security forces and militants, is one of the most important journalistic duties that requires extreme grit and determination from reporters.

While the EGI accepted there may be some guidelines relating to reporting in such areas, it termed the Kashmir police advisory as draconian and undemocratic, claiming that such rules flout the role of journalists in reporting conflict in India. As such they demanded that the advisory be immediately withdrawn.

“Visibly, the police are trying to giving an impression of trying to maintain peace by attempting to control the fallout of violence in a high strung environment, but what is being instead done is an attempt by the security forces to escape from any kind of media scrutiny about the flow of events behind the violence,” said the EGI in a press release.

The post Withdraw advisory on live reporting in J&K: EGI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Editors Guild writes to Assam CM on safety and protection of working journalists in the state

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 06:04:23 +0000

Image Courtesy:outlookindia.com

The Editors Guild Of India (EGI) has written to Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal expressing its concern on the “safety and protection of working journalists” there. The Guild has taken note of and expressed concern about the “growing incidence of violence against journalists” it stated that mediapersons working in the state “have been subjected to mob attacks, intimidation, and threats,” and that such attacks vitiate “the environment necessary for the functioning of an independent and vibrant media”.

The letter stated that while Sonowal’s “firm condemnation” of these attacks was appreciated, the situation demands his “urgent intervention to assure the media that they are safe to report without fearing retribution from the criminal mafia”. The guild added that in the absence of such a statement from the CM “a sense of impunity could embolden attackers who may believe that they are above the law”.

The guild reminded the CM for the need to speak up and mentioned attacks on journalists including the horrific one on journalist Milan Mahanta who “was tied to a pole by five criminals and beaten mercilessly”, and the death of journalist Parag Bhuyam, who was run over by a car.

The Guild stated it was a “testament of the difficult environment in which the journalists work in Assam”.

“We record our appreciation of your efforts in bringing monetary relief to the kin of the 32 journalists killed in Assam since 1991 with generous compensations. However, most of the cases have not been resolved with allegations of shoddy investigations. In many cases culprits roam free, intimidating the families of the slain journalists. We hope you will urge the state police to take necessary steps for rebuilding confidence in the media, so that they can operate without fear,” concluded the Guild in the letter.

This is the letter the guild sent to Sarbananda Sonowal:

November 19, 2020

Sh. Sarbananda Sonowal
Hon’ble Chief Minister
Government of Assam
CM Block, Janata Bhawan
Dispur, Assam- 781006

Subject: Safety and protection of working journalists in the state of Assam

Sir,

The Editors Guild of India writes to you with deep concern about the growing incidence of violence against journalists in Assam. They have been subjected to mob attacks, intimidation, and threats, which is vitiating the environment necessary for the functioning of an independent and vibrant media.

While we appreciate your firm condemnation of these incidents, the situation demands your urgent intervention to assure the media that they are safe to report without fearing retribution from the criminal mafia. In the absence of that, a sense of impunity could embolden attackers who may believe that they are above the law.

The manner in which Milan Mahanta, 42, who writes for Asomiya Pratidin and Dainik Asom, was tied to a pole by five criminals and beaten mercilessly, is a testament of the difficult environment in which the journalists work in Assam. A video of this assault has gone viral on social media. Mahanta, who has named the assailants, claimed that he was beaten up for his reportage against the Kamrup district gambling and land mafias.

This incident comes close on the heels of the death of Parag Bhuyam, a journalist with Pratidin Time, who was overrun by a car near his home in Kakopathar. The Pratidin Time editor has alleged that Bhuyam was murdered as he had been receiving threats for exposing corruption and illegal activities of the criminal nexus in the Kakopathar area.

We record our appreciation of your efforts in bringing monetary relief to the kin of the 32 journalists killed in Assam since 1991 with generous compensations. However, most of the cases have not been resolved with allegations of shoddy investigations. In many cases culprits roam free, intimidating the families of the slain journalists. We hope you will urge the state police to take necessary steps for rebuilding confidence in the media, so that they can operate without fear.

Sincerely,

Seema Mustafa, President

Sanjay Kapoor, General Secretary

Anant Nath, Treasurer

The letter comes in the wake of concerns being raised by local journalist bodies and organisations. The North Lakhimpur Press Club (NLPC) had also expressed concerns over the growing threat to working journalists and condemned the alleged murder of Kakopothar journalist Parag Bhuyan. According to a report in the Assam Sentinel the NLPC also raised concerns about the physical harassment of journalist Milan Mahanta by a group of anti-social elements of Mirja. The NLPC organized a protest meeting at its office on Monday, which was also National Press Day. The meeting was presided over by NLPC working president KumudBaruah while secretary Karuna Krishna Nath explained the objectives of the programme.

The NLPC resolution has demanded the State Government identify the culprits involved in the mysterious death of Kakopothar journalist Parag Bhuyan and bring them to justice. It also demanded the arrest of those antisocial people who harassed Mirja journalist Milan Mahanta. Regarding these issues, NLPC has submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister through the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur. The NLPC passed another resolution to boycott all kinds of government programmes and reporting government news until those accused of harassing Milan Mahanta were arrested.

The NLPC had also expressed strong resentment over the arrest of electronic media journalist of Dhubri district, Rajib Sarmah on Wednesday night. According to the Sentinel report Sarmah was arrested on the basis of an FIR lodged by Dhubri DFO, Biswajit Ray alleging that Sarmah had demanded money from him. Following the arrest of the journalist, his ailing father died on Thursday morning, allegedly unable to bear the shock of his only son being arrested from his residence.

The Lakhimpur District Journalists’ Association (LDJA) also condemned the arrest and demanded that the State Government release Sarmah who had been reporting about the alleged corruption in the forest department, which had aggrieved the department officials and the DFO stated the news report.

The post Editors Guild writes to Assam CM on safety and protection of working journalists in the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.