The Centre on Thursday suggested to the Supreme Court to frame regulatory mechanisms for curbing hateful, insidious and communal content on digital and social media platforms rather than making a fresh attempt to regulate content of print and electronic media, which already have an existing framework recognised by the court in recent judgments.
Apparently anguished by Sudarshan TV’s 10-part programme allegedly insinuating that Muslims were infiltrating the civil services as part of a larger conspiracy, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph on Tuesday had stopped further telecast of the serial, an order extended till Friday, and expressed keenness to frame guidelines for the electronic media.
Attempting to dampen the bench’s enthusiasm, the information & broadcasting ministry said, “Even if the SC considers it appropriate to undertake the said exercise, there is no justification to confine this exercise only to mainstream electronic media. The media includes mainstream electronic media, mainstream print media as well as a parallel media namely digital print media and digital web-based news portals and YouTube channels as well as over the top platforms (OTTs).”
Pointing to past rulings, the Centre said in the Common Cause judgment of 2018, the SC had said, “We are of the view that the central government, having framed rules in the nature of Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, would be well advised to frame similar rules, in exercise of the power vested with it under Section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to formalise the complaint redressal mechanism, including the period of limitation within which a complaint can be filed, and the statutory authority concerned which shall adjudicate upon the same, including the appellate and other redressal mechanisms, leading to a final conclusive determination.”
The Centre further said, “While in mainstream media (whether electronic or print), the publication/telecast is a one-time act, digital media has faster reach from wider range of viewership/readership and has the potential to become viral because of several electronic applications like WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook.
“Considering the serious impact and the potential, it is desirable that if the SC decides to undertake the exercise, it should first be undertaken with regard to digital media as there already exists sufficient framework and judicial pronouncements with regard to electronic media and print media.”
The ministry said the field of balancing between journalistic freedom and responsibility was already occupied either by statutory provisions made by Parliament or by SC judgments. “The present petition be confined to only one channel, namely Sudarshan TV, and the SC may not undertake the exercise of laying down any further guidelines with or without appointment of an amicus or a committee of persons as amicus,” it added.
The ministry said the SC had already dealt with the issues of “hate speech” and “content regulation of TV and radio shows” in its 2014 and 2018 judgments. “The fact situation in each case shall have to be decided on a case-to-case basis and a broader exercise which is too general in nature is neither warranted nor permissible,” it said, relying on the judgments.
In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan judgment of 2014, the SC had said, “It is desirable to put reasonable prohibition on unwarranted actions but there may arise difficulty in confining the prohibition to some manageable standard and in doing so, it may encompass all sorts of speeches, which needs to be avoided.
“For a long time, the US courts were content in upholding legislations curtailing ‘hate speech’ and related issues. However, lately, the courts have shifted gears, thereby paving the way for a myriad of rulings which side with individual freedom of speech and expression as opposed to the order of a manageable society.”
After examining the existing provisions of law in penal laws, the SC had said, “The statutory provisions and particularly the penal law provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of ‘hate speeches’. Thus, a person aggrieved must resort to the remedy provided under a particular statute. The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution.”
“We, therefore, hereby recommend, that the central government, within the framework of Section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, deliberate on the issue and take a conscious decision thereon, and to finalise a similar statutory framework for radio programmes as well. Till the above issue is considered and finalised, the existing mechanism of complaint redressal shall remain in place.”
Citing these two judgments, the Centre told the SC on Thursday, “Aforesaid quoted parts lay down the correct legal position requiring no general exercise to be undertaken merely based on one episode or a few episodes of one channel namely Sudarshan TV.”
Leave a Reply