- Says Rs 1 lakh fine under existing regulatory mechanism inadequate, fines must be proportionate to profits earned from such programmes
New Delhi, Aug 14.
The Supreme Court on Monday said that while it firmly believed that the right to freedom of speech and expression of the press must be respected, it drew the line at the media “destroying reputations” and airing programmes based on “presumption of guilt” on the part of the accused.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud also said that the fines imposed by the self-regulating mechanism on the electronic media for violating their uplinking and downlinking norms were inadequate and must be “proportionate” to the profits earned by TV channels from such programmes. The other two judges of the bench were Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Mishra.
The CJI’s observations came on pleas filed by regulatory bodies which claim to regulate the affairs of the electronic media against a Bombay High court order which had made several critical remarks regarding the weaknesses of the self-regulatory mechanism in a case related to the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The remarks came during arguments by senior advocate Arvind P. Datar on behalf of one such body, the National Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA). Datar claimed that the PILs against the self-created mechanism had come in the wake of the actor’s death and the frenzied reporting that had followed the incident.
The High Court’s scathing indictment further undermined the credibility of the self-regulatory mechanism, he argued. He claimed that the mechanism was working fine. Over 4000 such complaints had been disposed of, he said. Many more are pending and were being addressed.
Fines of Rs 1 lakh was also imposed against any errant channel, Datar said. He also argued that under the existing scheme of things if five adverse orders were passed against any member, he would stand to lose its broadcasting license. The erring member would have to carry an apology as well in some glaring cases.
The CJI said that the existing fine was grossly inadequate to the damage they do to reputations. Many such programmes were based on the presumption of guilt of the accused, he said, hinting at the court intervention to tighten the existing mechanism.
Under our Constitution, every accused is presumed innocent till he or she is proven guilty in a court of law. TV channels, which act partisan or play up investigatory titbits are clinching evidence, interfere with impartial investigations into a case, the norm rather exception these days in the race for TRPs.
The court referred to this when it said any kind of self-regulation must be effective. That is why the fine must have a deterrent effect, the CJI said.
“…The fine should be in proportion with the profiles earned by the channel from that show. The self-regulatory mechanism has to be effective…,” the CJI said. The central government had earlier opposed any attempt to regulate the media, insisting that there was a system in place to deal with such reporting.
The top court eventually sought response from all stake-holders, including former judges of the top court who head media regulatory bodies. The response will include their views on whether there was a need to hike the Rs 1 lakh fixed in 2008 and not hiked ever since. The responses have to be filed in three weeks.