In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed two separate Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking the imposition of stricter regulations on television news channels and the establishment of an independent media tribunal for addressing content-related grievances. The Bench, comprised of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol, highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and expression for media channels and underscored that viewers have the choice to avoid watching channels they find objectionable.
Justice Oka, delivering the Court's stance, commented, "Who compels you to watch all these channels? If you do not like them, then do not watch them. When some wrong thing is shown, it is also about perception. Is there no freedom of expression? Even if we say no media trials, how can we stop things on the internet and all? How can we grant such prayers? Who takes it seriously, tell us. There is freedom not to press the TV button."
Furthermore, the Court questioned the feasibility of setting strict guidelines and an independent regulatory body, stating, "Who will lay down guidelines? Tell your clients not to watch these news channels, and do something better with their time."
The PILs were filed by Reepak Kansal, a Delhi-based lawyer, and filmmaker Nilesh Navalakha along with activist Nitin Memane. Kansal sought the creation of an independent regulatory authority to address what he termed as "sensational reporting" by news broadcasters. He expressed concerns about the negative impact of scandalous coverage on individuals, communities, and religious or political organizations, often resulting in tarnished images and even inciting violence among the public.
On the other hand, the petitioners Nilesh Navalakha and Nitin Memane called for the establishment of a 'media tribunal' to promptly address complaints against media networks and television channels. They contended that the existing Union Ministry for Information and Broadcasting had failed in enforcing the Programme Code that television channels are expected to adhere to.
The Court's decision comes amid a broader discussion on media ethics, freedom of the press, and the role of regulatory bodies in the ever-evolving landscape of digital media. While the PILs aimed to address concerns regarding sensationalism, hate speech, and content that might contribute to social divisions, the Court's ruling underscores the delicate balance between upholding freedom of expression and ensuring responsible journalism.
It is worth noting that a different bench of the Supreme Court had previously expressed concerns over the functioning of mainstream television news channels, highlighting instances of hate speech and sensationalism without adequate consequences. The Court had raised alarms about the potential impact of such content on societal harmony and cohesion.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
