The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra provided that until and unless the rules of self-regulation are made more stringent, television networks will not be required to follow them. Notably, the Bench was hearing an appeal filed by News Broadcasters Association (NBA) against a Bombay High Court verdict that contained critical observations about the lack of teeth in self-regulation mechanism for TV channels.

“You say TV channels practice self-restraint. I don’t know how many in court would agree with you. Everybody went berserk whether it was a murder etc. You pre-empt the investigation. What is the fine you impose? ₹1 lakh! How much does a channel earn in one day. Unless you make the rules stringent no TV channel has no compulsion to comply. For any violation if there is a lakh penalty then what stops them?” CJI Chandrachud had stated, as reported by LiveLaw.

The bench then said that they will be working on strengthening the self-regulation framework now so that channels are required to be bound by them. The Court, therefore, sought suggestions on the present penalty of ₹1 lakh which is imposed on news channels for violation of NBA guidelines.

“We will strengthen the framework. We have seen the uplinking and downlinking guidelines. We will tweak the Bombay High Court judgment. But we will strengthen the regulations now,” the Court remarked as reported in Bar&Bench.

Need for effective rules of self-regulation:

It is essential to note that during the arguments, Datar kept vehemently pushing for self-regulation of TV channels, maintaining that there cannot and should not be any control by the state.

“We are against what Bombay High Court observed. Please see the downlinking guidelines. If we pass five adverse orders against a channel then their license will not be renewed. High Court says the self-regulatory mechanism is not controlled by the statutory body and the Nariman committee especially sought the same thing. We are aggrieved by the adverse remarks. Like we failed the hopes of citizens etc should not be held against me.”

On this, the Bench had underlined that such self-regulation should be effective and needs to have a deterrent impact on the violators.

“While we appreciate there has to be self-regulation but the self-regulation has to be effective. Having a former Supreme Court judge is not enough. They are also bound by the regulations. How do you give bite to your regulations to make it more effective? The penalty should be a dislodgement fee sorts,” Bar and Bench reported.

On the issue of fine of Rs. 1 lakh, the bench questioned when the same was devised. In response to this, Data provided that it was set in the year 2008.

To this, the CJI replied, “So from last 15 years you kept the (amount) same. The fine should be in proportion with the profiles earned by the channel from that show. The self-regulatory mechanism has to be effective. You virtually pre-empt the criminal investigation. We agree that government interference should not be there…” as reported by Bar&Bench.

Directions of the Court:

The Court proceeded to issue notice on the plea and also sought suggestions on the present penalty which is imposed on news channels for violation of NBA guidelines.

“Let counter affidavit be filed in three weeks. The suggestions to be placed before the court will be also on the aspect of penalty. The penalty of ₹1 lakh was fixed in 2008 and has not been changed since then,” the Court said in its order, as reported by LiveLaw.

In further to this, the Court also directed Senior Counsel Arvind Datar, appearing for the NBA, to seek suggestions from Justices AK Sikri and RV Raveendran on self-regulation of TV channels.

“Mr Datar will seek suggestions from Justices Sikri and Raveendran so that it can be submitted before the court. Centre to file the counter to this,” the bench directed.

As regards self-regulation, the Court said that the same needs to be strengthened and the Court will examine the same as well.

Related:

NAJ, DUJ blasts Union Govt Bill(s) on Media

Growing calls for social and economic boycott of Muslims surfacing on social media, plea in the Supreme Court

Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint

Report facts, not rumours, do not call for violence: EGI to Indian media outlets

The Shrinking Space for Free Media under Modi rule

SC for freedom of expression: Strikes down ban on Media One

Is the Election Commission vigilant enough in safeguarding India’s election process from the influence of social media?

The post Supreme Court finds self-regulation of TV to be “ineffective”, will frame stringent laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This strongly worded letter has been signed by Anubha Dhasmana, Arpita Chatterjee, BK Chandrashekar (retd), Deepak Malghan, Hema Swaminathan, Krishna T Kumar (Rtd), Malay Bhattacharyya (retd), Mira Bakhru (Rtd), PD Jose, Prateek Raj

Raghavan Srinivasan (retd), Rajluxmi V Murthy, Ritwik Banerjee, Shalique M S,

Soham Sahoo, Srinivasan Murali and Vinod Vyasulu (retd).

The letter makes a cogent argument against all news and social media organisations that publicly air hateful or genocidal content against a community of people. Further, the signatories have strongly urged corporate leaders to conduct an internal audit to ensure that their funds, in forms like advertising or donations, go to only such stakeholders, like news and social media organizations that conduct themselves. responsibly,and not fan the flames of hate and misinformation. The third crucial point that the Open Letter makes is that Corporate Leaders should work towards creating a welcoming work culture, mandatorily  conduct timely diversity and inclusion sensitization events within their organizations to ensure their work culture remains welcoming to people of a variety of faiths and social backgrounds.

The entire text of the letter may be read here:

“We, some of the current and retired faculty members at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, in our personal capacity, are writing this open letter to the leaders of corporate India, drawing their attention to the fragile state of internal security with an increasing risk of violent conflicts in the country, and appealing that they de-fund the spread of misinformation and hate speech through news channels and social media.

“Over the past few years, an open and public exhibit of hatred towards minorities in public discourse has become common practice in India: in political discourse, television news, as well as on social media. The usage of othering, dehumanizing and demonizing “language while referring to minorities has reached alarming levels, and acts of violent hate crimes, often by organized and radicalized groups, against minorities have seen a rise. The inaction of police and security forces during recent communal riots, as well as the acquittal or pardoning  of culprits involved in rape and mass murder during previous instances of riots, coupled with the silence of authorities, has signalled a glaring level of complacency in place of urgency by the government.

“These trends concern corporate India, as they point towards an increasing risk of violent conflicts in the country. In the worst case, such acts of violence could culminate into a genocide, which would annihilate the social fabric as well as the economy of the country, casting a long dark shadow over India’s future, Corporate India, which hopes to reach new frontiers of international growth and innovation in the 21st century, cannot afford to live with even a small possibility of such a scenario.

“India has a long history of tolerance and peaceful coexistence of different faiths, and we would like to believe that the risk of large-scale violent conflicts or genocide in India is still small. However, this risk is no longer close to zero, as the rapidly increasing levels of radicalization of citizens are fermenting an atmosphere conducive to large-scale violence being triggered due to unexpected disturbances. Even if India does evade such a risk, it is certain that the deteriorating social fabric in the country, due to increasing hate and dehumanizing speech and radicalization, shall inevitably lead to escalating violence and socioeconomic uncertainty, permanently paralyzing the future of the country.

“We believe that maintaining peace, stability and cohesion in the country is of paramount importance to corporate India without which India cannot become an economic powerhouse. The leaders of corporate India have an important and substantial role to play in curbing the spread of hate and misinformation. We appeal to corporate India to:

1.  STOP FUNDING HATE:Stop funding any and all news and social media organizations that publicly air hateful or genocidal content against a community of people.

2.  SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE STAKEHOLDERS:Conduct an internal audit to ensure that their funds, in forms like advertising or donations, go to only such stakeholders, like news and social media organizations that conduct themselves. responsibly,and not fan the flames of hate and misinformation.

3.  CURATE A WELCOMING WORK CULTURE:Mandatorily conduct timely diversity and  inclusion sensitization events within their organizations to ensure their work culture remains welcoming to people of a variety of faiths and social backgrounds.

4. USE YOUR VOICE FOR FRATERNITY:Vocally ensure that India’s diverse social fabric, public discourse, and democratic institutions remain strong.

Use your voice to rise up against hate!”

This is a significant development. IIM Professionals, Scientists, Doctors speaking up against the prevalent Hate culture that exists in the country today.

Related:

Rising Tensions: Hindutva organisations continue with hate speeches across India

Large Scale Mobilisation, Hate Speech a common factor in North India

Supreme Court: Authorities must ensure that no violence or hate speeches takes place during VHP rally in Delhi-NCR

The post IIM faculty members write an open letter to corporate India to ‘De-fund Hate Speech’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

Delhi HC set aside trial court’s order for filing of FIR against VHP leader for allegedly delivering hate speech in 2019

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

The post SC asks petitioners to not watch channels spreading hate, states that legal remedies available already appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Debate shows on mainstream news channels are, more often than not, polarised and discuss issues that drive the communal narrative. The same was the case for this show where the debate was on a survey by UP government and the speakers, who were not directly connected with the issue were being asked to give their opinion on it. The host, Pandey, asked one of the speakers from the Muslim community why did some madrassas not have proper documents for the international funding they received. However, the speaker, unaware of the ground reality wasn’t able to add much value to the debate and it was evident that the debate was being carried out merely for the same of discussing an issue on communal lines.

The debate started with statements like, “UP me videshi funding wale madarsson par kya taala lagne wala hai?”; Madarsson par Yogi ka action to Maulana ko tension kyu ho rahi hai?”; Videshi funding par action, to kaum ko badnaam karne wali baat kyun aagai? Kya ye na maane ki ye bhadkane wali baat hai?”; “Avaidh madarsson par ghamasan, Bajrang Dal par bhaijaan kyun bhadak gaye, Kyun Maulvi sahab ko dikkat hogai?” [Will the madrassa receiving international funding in UP be locked down?; If yogi is acting on madrassas why are maulanas worried? Action against International funding, where is the question of insulting the religion? Is this inciteful? Attack on illegal madrassas, why are Muslims angry at Bajrang Dal? Why are Maulvis hassled?]

It was also evident how the host was interrupting those speaking favourably towards the Muslim community. At one point, a speaker called Haji Rangrez even said that if madrassas are found to not have the required documents for the international funding or are found to be illegal then the government must take action as per law. However, the host moved on from this statement and did not give it any weightage, merely to keep the pot boiling.

Vinod Bansal (of VHP) and one of the participants in the debate also said that the madrassas have mushroomed in the border areas of the country and the children are being pushed towards ‘jihad’ and terrorism. When asked to substantiate this claim, the host and the participant both ignored it.

The following tickers were being run throughout the show:

• Madarsson par Yogi ka action, Maulana ko tension? [If Yogi is taking action against madrassas why is Maulana worried?]
• Avaidh Madarson par Yogi ka Hunter, kise darr? [Yogi taking action against illegal madrasas, who is scared?]
• Bajrang Dal par kyun bhadke Madni Bhaijaan? [Why are muslims angered at Bajrang Dal?]
• Ab nahi chalega Videshi funding ka khel? [Now international funding will not be allowed?]
• Aatank ko paala, to madarsson par lagega taala? [If terrorism is being taught, the madrassas will be shut down?]

It is important that a host of a debate remains unbiased, neutral but in this show, the moderator clearly favoured the people supporting the ideologically aligned participant and let them make baseless claims on the show.

The complaint states, “the host is seen questioning someone from the Muslim community about the illegality of these madrassas. The question being, does he run any of these madrassas? How is he capable of answering these questions about illegal madrassas? The whole point of the debate thus becomes moot. Yet, the debate continues among people who are not concerned directly with the subject being discussed. Thus, leading to a polarised debate.”

CJP has complained against Times Now Navbharat in November last year which was also based on madrassas survey of UP whereby, the term ‘madrassa jihad” was used by the host Naina Yadav. On Monday, CJP filed two other complaints against the channel. One was against the using the term ‘mazaar jihad’ for a show based on alleged illegal mazaars in Uttarakhand and the other was against a debate show in which a statement made by one Hasan Madni was being discussed where he said that whoever talks about a Hindu nation is a traitor.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

CJP calls out Aaj Tak for calling alleged illegal mazaars as “Mazaar Jihad”

CJP Victory! NBDSA Fines News18 Over Hateful Shows

CJP Victory: NBDSA Slams Fine Of Rs. 25,000 On News18

CJP writes to Times Now against “Madrassa Jihad” show

The post Complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over madrassa survey in UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.