The SC judge added that “one of the ways (to exercise the check and balance) is if you have an erring anchor, the key actually is handled by the anchor, in a live program the fairness of the program is ultimate with the anchor if the anchor is not acting in a fair manner…if you take strong action against anchors, what will happen (is), immediately they will know it’s not going to pay. On the other hand, I will have to pay a heavy price, I will be taken off the air…There is a power to take off anchors also”.
The Supreme Court Friday favored action against television anchors who act unfairly during debates and sought to know how many times an anchor has been taken off air over a program. Reported Indian Express.
“How many times have you taken off anchors? Have you dealt with anchors in the way you send a message?”, Justice K M Joseph, heading a two-judge bench, asked Advocate Nisha Bhambani appearing for the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) hearing a batch of cases involving allegations of hate speech.
Justice Joseph posed the query when Bhambani said the Authority had taken quick and effective action whenever it receives a complaint regarding a program aired by any of its members.
Representing the government, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, responding to demands to moderate the content on TV, told the bench, also comprising Justice B V Nagarathna, that there are sufficient checks and balances in place.
Justice Joseph responded that “checks and balances are certainly not being advised in a manner which produces the result”.
Also Read:‘Impossible For BJP To Replicate 2019 Lok Sabha Win”: Shashi Tharoor
He said anchors sometimes shut down people from expressing their views. “Many of these TV programs, don’t allow people to talk on an equal basis. Participants you don’t want to express their views, you will either mute them or allow the other person to go on the whole time unchallenged”, he said adding “so the point is it is not the right of the broadcaster or the views of the panelist. It is the right of the persons who are viewing it”.
The SC judge added that “one of the ways (to exercise the check and balance) is if you have an erring anchor, the key actually is handled by the anchor, in a live program the fairness of the program is ultimate with the anchor if the anchor is not acting in a fair manner…if you take strong action against anchors, what will happen (is), immediately they will know it’s not going to pay. On the other hand, I will have to pay a heavy price, I will be taken off the air…There is a power to take off anchors also”.
Delving on how to regulate TV while balancing the right to free speech, Justice Joseph said: “On the one hand it’s freedom of speech…The greater the freedom, the better the marketplace of ideas theory is very good. But in the marketplace of ideas, we also have to see the kind of populace….The problem with freedom is it really depends on the audience. Are they mature enough to receive the kind of information or misinformation that is dished out? If freedom is exercised with an agenda, if you are promoting a particular agenda, then you are not serving actually the people. You are serving some other cause of somebody else. Then you have to be dealt with”.
Referring to the incident of the man accused of urinating on a fellow passenger during a flight, Justice Joseph said: “The kind of words that had been used for him, he is an undertrial. Let them do what they want for TRP. But please see to it that when you use words, you don’t denigrate anyone. Human dignity is involved…It’s a part of Article 21”.
“When you are exercising your constitutional right of freedom of the press etc, you should act as you deserve it. The right should be exercised in the proper manner. Otherwise what dignity is left to the nation…”, he added,
Justice Joseph pointed out that in the US under the First Amendment, freedom of the press is preserved, and “they allow free speech till two things happen. One is fighting words theory and incitement to violence. In England also, they are fighting short of encroaching freedom of speech. So they will not interfere. In Europe also, they are not very very enamored of the idea of restricting free speech”.
He added that in India, the problems are completely different and there is a constitutional provision — Article 19(2). “But we are only telling you free speech also has to be protected”.
Added Justice Nagarathna, “That’s why these petitions are not really with regard to 19(2) as such, it is the exercise of 19(1)(a) rights and how in the exercise of those rights, there is a violation of Article 21 or another person’s Article 19(1)(a) rights.”
Justice Joseph said people in the media must have to realize that they occupy positions of strength. “…And any misuse by them, by anyone who goes and sits in the channel is impacting the whole nation. Because people who watch them, will not be in a position to immediately find out what really is the truth. They will take whatever is being said as the truth and assimilate it into their systems and accordingly condition their life which is very very dangerous.”
At the last hearing, the SC had asked the DGPs of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to register suo motu action against those indulging in “hate speech” by lodging criminal cases without waiting for formal complaints.
Friday, the counsel for Uttarakhand told the court that pursuant to the order, the state registered 118 cases of which 23 are suo motu and the rest on the basis of complaints.
The state counsel said there were some practical difficulties. When a police officer registers a case suo motu, the officer becomes the complainant and then the investigation becomes subjective instead of being objective. When the police officer is the complainant, there is no question of the police saying the charges are not correct, he added.
To a query from the bench, he said the investigation in the cases is going on.
Uttar Pradesh informed the court that it had registered 581 cases in 2021 and 2022 and that 160 of these were suo motu. The court noted that the figure for 2022 was almost 2.5 times that of 2021.
Responding to what the government is planning to regulate hate speech on TV etc, Nataraj said it is planning changes to the criminal law.
“We have sought input from various stakeholders, different states. We have been getting these inputs…Ultimately, it has to go to the Parliament. It’s a legislative exercise….After collecting all the inputs, we have to suggest appropriate legislation…I can’t speak for the legislation”, he said.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
