Need better discipline among TV news channels: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has called for stronger self-regulation among TV news channels to ensure discipline while protecting freedom of speech.

There has to be better discipline among TV news channels under a stricter self-regulatory mechanism, even as their right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, the Supreme Court observed on Monday.

HT Image

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud asked the two representative bodies – News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and News Broadcasters Federation (NBF) – to suggest ways to strengthen the mechanism to deal with errant channels and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.

“The first tier of regulation is self-regulation by broadcasters. We want to strengthen the first tier itself that protects their right under Constitution Article 19(1)(a) - right to free speech and expression – and brings discipline,” said the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The order came on a petition filed by NBA, now called the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), to appeal against a January 18, 2021, decision of the Bombay high court, which refused to accord legal sanctity to the self-regulatory mechanism adopted by news channel associations to regulate themselves.

The NBA has a regulatory overseer called the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) headed by a former Supreme Court judge; it is functioning for the past 14 years. However, not all channels are part of the NBA and the authority can only impose a paltry penalty of ₹1 lakh on violations, which the top court found to be ineffective.

On Monday, as the matter came up for hearing, senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing NBA, informed the court that he needs four weeks to suggest revised guidelines as talks are still on with the present chairperson of NBSA, former justice AK Sikri, and retired justice RV Raveendran, who headed it earlier.

As the court was willing to grant time, rival association NBF told the court that the NBA had no legal standing in the matter as they are not registered with the government. “We can’t be bound by any guidelines brought by them. Half the news broadcasters are with us,” said senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for NBF. “How can they seek to regulate when they are not registered?”

The Centre, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, filed its response to the petition last week, which said that under the Cable Television Networks (CTN) Amendment Rules introduced in 2021, all self-regulatory bodies of broadcasters must be registered with the government. The NBSA has refused to register while the self-regulatory body of the NBF, called the Professional News Broadcasters Standards Authority (PNBSA), is registered and the only statutorily recognized self-regulatory body for TV news channels, Mehta said.

The bench refused to be drawn into the debate on who is recognized among the two rivals. “We want that the self-regulatory guidelines must be tightened,” it said. “We don’t want this issue to be lost in the cacophony of rival ideologies.”

The court allowed NBF to submit its guidelines in four weeks. “Former judges of this court are looking into this issue. They will do well,” the bench said. “We will permit the rival organisations to place their mechanism before us.”

Jethmalani informed the court that the NBF is formulating regulations and is in talks with former Supreme Court judge AM Khanwilkar in this regard.

Datar informed the court that for registering under the 2021 CTN Rules, a minimum of 40 news broadcasters are required. “The NBF have roped in cable operators and even claim to have former CJI JS Khehar heading their self-regulatory body, but justice Khehar says he has nothing to do with them,” he said.

Mehta said that presently there is no legal vacuum on regulating news channels and there is a three-tier mechanism, citing from an affidavit filed by ministry of information and broadcasting. At the first level, there is self-regulation by broadcasters, followed by self-regulation by authorities created by the news broadcasters, and finally, oversight by the Centre that talks of an interministerial committee to handle complaints against TV channels.

There are 394 TV news channels registered or licensed under the Uplinking and Downlinking Policy Guidelines of the ministry. The NBA or NBDA has 71 out of 394 news channels as members, while NBF counts 46 broadcasters as members.

The Centre informed the court that NBA and NBDA are trying to create “monopolistic” rights in the field of complaints redressal mechanism of news broadcasters, independent of governmental or statutory control. The Centre was unwilling to accept this.

However, the 2021 regulations have provided the space for self-regulation as a private arrangement between channels as the affidavit claimed that the only interest is to ensure channels fall in line with the government’s programma and advertising codes.

The Bombay high court order under challenge in NBA’s petition claimed that under the statutory framework of regulation prescribed by the Centre, there is no legal sanctity for self-regulatory bodies. However, since this decision, the 2021 amendment to CTN Rules now recognizes self-regulatory mechanism for regulating errant channels violating the programme code.

However, the 2021 amendment rules were challenged before the Kerala high court. By an order of July 2021, the high court protected a broadcaster from “coercive action” for not following the new rules. This order has been challenged by the Centre before the Supreme Court and is pending consideration.