November 18, 2020 5:16:04 am
“We want to know what is the mechanism to treat this content on television. If there is no regulatory mechanism, then one is created, ”said the bank, which is also made up of judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed its disgust at the Center’s affidavit in a case related to media reports about attendees at Tablighi Jamaat in Delhi testing positive for Covid-19, and asked it to develop a mechanism to deal with complaints against electronic media.
In its latest affidavit filed with the Supreme Court – it had filed an earlier one in October – the Trade Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry said that news reports and articles in print and online publications on the issue have been largely “balanced and neutral “and not communal. He mentioned The Indian Express, The Times of India and the Hindustan Times to say that they “have published largely factual reports in this context” and that “online like The Print and The Wire have also done objective reporting, via reports from news, and analysis, through opinion articles and editorials, of events related to the Tablighi Jamaat ”.
The ministry’s affidavit, however, is silent on the coverage of the event on television news channels.
The court headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said that the Center’s affidavit had failed to address two important issues: the applicability of the Cable TV Networks Act to electronic media and the legal regime on this issue.
“We are not satisfied with your affidavit… We had asked you to specify how the Cable TV Act can be used to control content. The affidavit says nothing about it. What steps can you take to deal with such complaints? “asked the bench to the Center.
The CJI’s remarks came during the hearing of the PILs presented by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the Peace Party seeking directions to the Center to prevent certain sections of the media from spreading false news.
“We want to know what is the mechanism to treat this content on television. If there is no regulatory mechanism, then one is created, ”said the court, which is also made up of judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.
“Your affidavit says nothing about the mechanism to regulate … It can’t be like we have to refer the matter to private bodies like NBSA (News Broadcasting Standards Authority) … Otherwise, we will hand it over to a external agency, “the bank said while publishing the matter for three weeks later.
During the hearing, Attorney General Tushar Mehta told the court that there is no regime for regulating the content of electronic media. “Cable is just a multi-channel transmission medium. The Cable Television Act deals with the transmission medium. However, there is a power under the law to prohibit broadcasting, ”Mehta said.
The Center’s affidavit, dated November 13 and signed by I&B Secretary Amit Khare, stated that “on any particular topic, there could be various views and perceptions in the public domain” and, as a “matter of journalistic politics, any section of the media can seek to highlight different events, problems and happenings around the world according to their choice ”.
Sharing details of social media accounts or government-blocked web links, the affidavit said that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had issued 734 instructions requesting fake news about Covid-19, which would likely create panic among the public and disturb public order. , to be removed. Said instructions for blocking content, he said, were sent in April to Facebook (113), Twitter (615), YouTube (3) and Instagram (12).
In October, the court had criticized the government for its “evasive” affidavit. The CJI had told the Center: “We must tell you … that you cannot treat the court the way it is treating you in this case. You have submitted an affidavit from a junior officer. We find it extremely elusive. It doesn’t mention anything about bad information. How can you say there was no incident?
The court had also previously requested the Center for information on the laws under which the government had exercised similar powers in the past; He had also said that he wanted to know if the government had any power to prohibit the transmission of television signals.
.
