LI Network
Published on: 14 August 2023 at 20:30 IST
The Supreme Court of India has announced its intention to bolster the efficacy of self-regulation among television channels by issuing comprehensive guidelines.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, accompanied by Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, highlighted the insufficiency of the current self-regulation framework and stressed the necessity for more stringent rules.
The bench remarked that without enhanced rules, there is little compulsion for television channels to adhere to their existing self-regulation measures.
The court expressed concerns over the current penalties for violations, which are capped at ₹1 lakh. CJI Chandrachud questioned the impact of such a fine, comparing it to the substantial earnings of TV channels in a single day. The court acknowledged the lack of deterrent effect due to the nominal penalty.
The bench proposed a comprehensive enhancement of the self-regulation framework to address these concerns.
It acknowledged the prior guidelines for uplinking and downlinking and expressed its intention to refine the Bombay High Court’s judgment on this matter.
As part of this initiative, the court invited suggestions regarding the current penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed on news channels for breaching the guidelines set by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA). To facilitate this process, Senior Counsel Arvind Datar, representing the NBA, was instructed to consult with Justices AK Sikri and RV Raveendran and present their suggestions to the court.
The court also directed the central government to submit details about other associations representing different channels.
The case in question originated from an appeal filed by the NBA against a Bombay High Court verdict, which criticized the effectiveness of the self-regulation mechanism for TV channels.
The NBA emphasized that TV channels must be self-regulated, asserting that external control should not interfere with their content. However, the court noted that self-regulation must possess a deterrence factor to ensure its effectiveness.
While acknowledging the importance of self-regulation, the court suggested that the fine for violations should be proportionate to the revenue generated by the channel from the contentious content.
This approach aims to create a financial disincentive for breaching regulations and ensure the seriousness of self-regulation.
The court also addressed instances of channels evading penalties by switching memberships between different associations. It recognized the need to tackle such shortcomings in the self-regulation framework.
In its order, the court directed the filing of a counter affidavit within three weeks and requested suggestions on revising the current ₹1 lakh penalty.
The court emphasized that its intent was not to introduce government interference but to strengthen self-regulation through a more effective and proportionate penalty structure.