The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a PIL petition seeking framing of guidelines to regulate print and electronic media.
The Court in this PIL filed by a Lawyer, observed:
"Considering the facts and circumstances and the law discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that a public interest litigation to frame guidelines to restrict the media on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition cannot be entertained and no guidelines can be framed... ",
The Lawyer-petitioner herein had raised concern over the rise in unresearched news, targeted reporting of sensational news, and the vilification of public and political functionaries without factual basis.
He stressed that there is need to safeguard the Right of the public to be informed.
Giving referrence of the conduct of Kerala Gold Smuggling Case in Malayalam media, the petitioner asserted that democracy may crumble at the hands of some unscrupulous media personnel functioning under the guise of journalism, unless necessary intervention is made to prevent the same.
The Bench considering his contentions dicussed in detail Press Rights as an aspect of the Right to Free Speech and found that the Court couldn't frame guidelines to regulate what is broadcasted or published.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI, where the Bench had refrained from imposing any General Guideline for the prior restraint of media reportage, the Court point out in the present case that Courts can still regulate the media from broadcasting issues on a case-to-case basis. Judges couldn't be swayed by media reports when deciding a case unless the report itself was material for consideration, it added.
The Bench was clearly of the opinion that framing General Regulation would curtail the Freedom of Press.
It further stated that there were sufficient remedies to persons aggrieved by privacy-infringing reportage or any other grievances under existing laws. In addition, there were provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to restrict coverage of sensitive matters by the Courts adjudicating on the same.
It noted:
"... taking into account the requisite provisions of law available under the Indian Penal Code and the Contempt of Courts Act, any person aggrieved is entitled to take necessary action so as to redress his grievances. So also, the courts are vested with ample powers while conducting trial of any sensational cases or when privacy is required to be maintained, to conduct in-camera proceedings and restrict the media from reporting any sensational news or any news so as to materially interfere with the privacy of a citizen. Moreover, we are satisfied that the Press Council Act, 1978 clearly prescribes a methodology to redress the grievances of any aggrieved person"
The Court also gave referenced of a similar petition filed before it wherein the Bench haad dismissed a plea against the airing of the TV reality show, Bigg Boss and made pertinent observations regarding the freedom of speech:
“... the freedom of expression is a pivotal component of our individual development – as human beings and as political animals – and to improve and radicalise democracies. The invention of the press was a turning point in the debate about freedom of expression. The printing press magnified the reach of opinions, information and ideas."
Further, the Court also emphasised on the Madras High Court's observations concerning self-regulation by the media and noted,
"Under self-regulation the media voluntarily commits to uphold a code of ethics that it, itself drafts, thus providing a mechanism to which the public can complaint about perceived breaches of the court and an independent council adjudicating on the complaints and decides upon appropriate remedies in order to secure the credibility of its profession and the trust of the public..."
Considering the above, the Court ruled that the petitioner herein lack locus in his PIL, and failed to substantiate his averments, and thus dismissed the petition.
The judgement has beendelivered by a Bench comprising of CHIEF JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY on 20-08-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
