The Bombay High Court has asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to inform it why it has not taken any action regarding the allegations related to the media trial in the death case of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput .
This comes when the News Broadcaster Association (NBA) implored the Bombay High Court not to give in to requests from petitioners seeking instructions for the formation of a statutory authority to regulate electronic media. The NBA said it would lead to the end of media independence. He argued that the existing self-regulatory mechanism has been very effective in redressing complaints against the channels and that all members have strictly adhered to its regulations, except Republic TV.
The NBA informed the court that Republic TV did not want to comply with NBA regulations and therefore left the association and went on to form its own self-regulatory authority. The presentations were made in public interest litigation brought against the media trial by news channels in the death case of Sushant Singh Rajput.
A bench in the division of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Judge Girish Kulkarni, while listening to a slew of petitions filed by individuals, NGOs and a group of former senior police officials seeking restraint in media trials, was reported by lead counsel Arvind Datar on behalf of the NBA and the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) that the self-regulatory mechanism of the channels was working diligently.
Also read: The global pandemic made us realize the importance of teamwork, says PM Modi
The two authorities were responding to petitioners ‘allegations that the electronic media were conducting media trials in which they resorted to police attacks, revealed vital details of the ongoing investigations, and tried to influence viewers’ views. The petitioners had stated that independent self-regulatory authorities, such as the NBA and the NBSA, were not taking the necessary steps to prevent the channels from conducting trials with the media.
However, Datar refuted the allegations, claiming that, time and again, they had taken disciplinary and sometimes strict action against rogue channels by banning their broadcast for three days to three months. He argued that although the two authorities did not have any legal power, they were resolving complaints based on the program code as ordered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).
He added that all member channels adhered to the rules and self-regulation decisions approved by the authorities. Datar further alleged that it was only recently that an English and regional language channel refused to abide by an NBA decision and left it to form another self-regulatory authority.
Datar concluded by persuading the court not to grant the petitioners’ requests to have a legal body to regulate electronic media, as it would be difficult for the media to function independently. He also cited Supreme Court rulings in which the higher court had refused to interfere or order the legislature to form a legal mechanism to regulate electronic media. In light of this, Datar asked the court not to exercise its discretionary authority.
After hearing submissions from the NBA and the NBSA, the court sought to know from the MIB whether the two independent authorities were formed without any legal power so that the channels could provide an escape route invoking article 19 (2) of the Constitution and the courts approaching when they were detained for irresponsible and objectionable reports.
Also Read: Summon Arnab Goswami if Named as Defendant in TRP FIR Scam: Bombay HC
However, Datar clarified that, although the two independent authorities were allowed to address complaints against errant channels, the MIB had no restrictions to simultaneously take action under the Cable Television Regulation Law. The court then asked the MIB to inform it on Wednesday why the ministry had not taken any action regarding the complaints related to the media trial in the death case of Sushant Singh Rajput.
.
