Broadcasters concerned over SC order in Times Now case | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 17, 2017-Tuesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Broadcasters concerned over SC order in Times Now case

delhi Updated: Nov 19, 2011 00:26 IST
HT Correspondents
HT Correspondents
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) has expressed concern over the court order against TV news channel Times Now, saying such decisions will cripple the functioning of the media and would completely jeopardise the media business.

In a statement, the apex News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also expressed their "sadness" over the court decisions saying "the very survival and existence of the news industry would be affected".

The Indian Newspaper Society (INS), in its release, said: There is need in the Times Now matter for a display of judicial sagacity, and INS hopes that the judiciary will find occasion to review its decision."

"We have been informed that conditions involving quantum of damages of this kind are unheard of in the history of defamation laws and effectively cripples the media's right to seek redressal by way of appeal," the IBF release said. "This case is an example of how an unintentional ... error on the part of the media can result in onerous economical burden for itself, despite a public apology being tendered by Times Now."

Times Now had by mistake aired a photograph of Justice P B Sawant instead of another judge with a similar-sounding name, in connection with the Ghaziabad provident fund scam.

An apology was aired several times by the channel. An unprecedented amount of R100 crore as damages was awarded by a District Court in Pune in favour of Justice Sawant. The Supreme Court had recently dismissed the Special Leave Petition of Times Now, which sough relief against the suit.

The IBF also expressed agreement with recent views that such decisions should be reviewed and reconsidered.

On Wednesday, Justice Markandey Katju, chairman of the Press Council of India, seeking a reconsideration of the order, had also termed the apex court order as "incorrect".