Supreme Court reprimands TV Channels for demanding a “free and balanced press” and not paying heed to the responsibilities that come along with the freedom.
Over the past years, it was observed how media channels have lost their ethics and credibility. The media channels are roasting their pieces of bread in the form of hate speech, disinformation and propaganda. But on Friday, the Supreme Court lamented over the way TV channels work and asked “If the anchors of TV programs are themselves part of the problem then what can be done? Also said about the TV channels that it wants to have “a free and balanced press in India” without the responsibility that comes with this freedom.
A number of petitions calling for action against hate speech were being heard by the court. The broad categories of cases included the following – the petitions filed against the ‘UPSC Jihad’ campaign by Sudarshan News TV, ‘Corona jihad’ campaign in the wake of Tablighi Jamaat issue, the Dharam Sansad meetings where anti-Muslim statements were allegedly made and petitions calling for broad rules to curb hate speech.
According to Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad, over 581 cases were registered and about 160 were suo motu cases, registered by the police. Deputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi said several cases of hate speech were registered including 23 that were lodged by police suo motu as per the last order of the court.
During the hearing, the court highlighted the problem of hate speech on television. It said that TV Channels and their anchors have become tools to peddle particular “agendas” through the powerful visual medium, creating divisiveness and violent instincts in the society to win their TRP (television rating point) war.
Justice Joseph stated if action is taken against the news anchors or their management, all will fall in line.
“In a live program, the key to the fairness of the program is held by the anchor. If the anchor is not fair…the anchor would want to project some side, would mute another side, and won’t question one side…It’s an indisputable insignia of bias, said justice Joseph.
“This hate speech is a complete menace, nothing short of it,” he added.”How many times action has been taken against the anchor? Media people must learn that they are occupying positions of great strength and they have an impact on society. They cannot be part of the problem and speak their mind whichever way they want”, Justice Joseph said.
While deliberating a number of petitions asking for action to be taken against those responsible for hate speech incidents across the nation, a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated, “The threat of hate speech has grown significantly. It needs to end.” The bench mentioned the most recent example of a man reportedly peeing on an Air India flight when it expressed concern about media trials.
If freedom is exercised with an agenda or to promote an agenda, you are not actually serving the people but some other cause, the court noted when asked whether any anchors had been “taken off air” to send a message against inciting hate or bias on TV. You must then be dealt with. The court stated that the content was decided by the anchors and editorial directors of the channels, adding that it was also determined by the “money” behind the networks.
The counsel for the News Broadcasters Association stated that thousands of complaints were received in the previous year and that the channels had been subject to regulatory action.
The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority has taken action against numerous violations, according to senior attorney Arvind Datar, who is representing the NBDA. Additionally, it was stated to the bench that networks like Republic TV and Sudarshan TV are not a part of the NBDA.
The Additional Solicitor General of India, KM Nataraj, informed the bench that the practise of self-regulation is being followed by the media in the current legal context. The ASG added that the Center won’t intervene unless a significant incident happens that threatens the national interest or security of the nation.
