Penalties Against TV Channels Must be Proportionate to Profits, SC Tells NBDA

Date:

The Chief Justice questioned the adequacy of the existing penalties imposed by the NBDA, citing a need for proportional fines that reflect the profits earned from news channels by airing disputed news. The bench noted that the penalty for violations is Rs 1 lakh, a figure which was set in 2008.

Team Clarion

NEW DELHI —  The ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism set up by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), namely the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBSA), is a matter of concern, the Supreme Court told the media watchdog on Monday.

While acknowledging the NBDA’s stance against pre-censorship or post-censorship on news channels through a statutory mechanism, the bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud stressed the necessity for an effective self-regulatory mechanism, a LiveLaw report said.

The Chief Justice questioned the adequacy of the existing penalties imposed by the NBDA, citing a need for proportional fines that reflect the profits earned from news channels by airing disputed news. The bench noted that the penalty for violations is Rs 1 lakh, a figure which was set in 2008.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a plea filed by the NBDA (formerly News Broadcasters Association) challenging the critical observations made by the Bombay High Court against the self-regulatory mechanism for media. The high court’s observations came in a judgment passed in January 2021 while deciding a batch of PILs questioning the media trial in the actor Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the NBDA, argued before the bench that the high court’s assertion that the self-regulatory mechanism lacks sanctity within the statutory framework is flawed. 

Emphasising the NBDA’s acknowledgment that was not a statutory body, he said it opposes the adverse remarks made by the high court that question its credibility and effectiveness. 

Datar pointed out that the self-regulatory mechanism plays a crucial role in addressing grievances and maintaining responsible journalism. Datar contended that the self-regulatory body functions similarly to an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, allowing citizens to raise grievances about media content they find objectionable. He said:  “This started during the Sushant Singh Rajput matter. There was a media frenzy. PILs were filed against media trials and that is where the matter was filed…The remarks (of Bombay HC) had a damaging impact on the integrity of our body…The scheme of the law is that TV channels should be left to be regulated by themselves. The state is not supposed to regulate.”

Datar highlighted the importance of the self-regulatory mechanism and its recognition by respected members of the industry. He also referred to the approval of the Nariman Committee report by the Supreme Court, which advocated for a self-regulatory approach to media regulation and emphasised the avoidance of state control, the LiveLaw report said.

The Chief Justice expressed concerns about the efficacy of the self-regulatory mechanism, particularly in cases where media coverage potentially hampers criminal investigations and infringes upon an individual’s reputation.

He also said that the media went “berserk” after the actor’s death and created a “frenzy”.

Questioning the quantum of punishment, the CJI then asked: “A fine of Rs 1 lakh for a channel; is that really effective? Your fine must be of proportion to the profits you make from that show. We don’t want to impose a pre-censorship or post-censorship on media. But the self-regulatory mechanism has to be effective. 

The CJI added that while the NBDSA is headed by former Supreme Court judges, their remit is limited by the NBDA guidelines. 

At this juncture, Advocate Amit Pai, appearing for certain party respondents, also underlined the ineffectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism by the NBA. He said: “Earlier there was an instance of a TV channel. I don’t want to name it. But the reality is when the NBA imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh, they left the membership of the association and joined another one.” The bench then urged that there was a need to strengthen the self-regulatory mechanism.

The court directed that a counter affidavit be filed within three weeks and emphasised the need to reconsider the penalty structure, which has remained unchanged since 2008. “We have seen the uplinking and downlinking guidelines. We will tweak the Bombay High Court judgment. But we will strengthen the regulations now,” the court remarked.

“This court has to consider whether steps taken to frame self-regulatory mechanism needs to be strengthened with regard to framework and final orders to be passed,” the bench observed in the order while issuing notice on the petition.

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Supreme Court Ruling Secures Future of Thousands of Madrasa Students

The court’s interpretation of secularism aligns with India's pluralistic...

Trump Vows to End The Endless Wars in Victory Speech: ‘We Will Bring Peace Back Home’

WASHINGTON --- In a bold proclamation during his victory...

Land Grabs to UAE Trade Deal: Congress Levels Serious Charges Against Modi Govt

Claims of unaddressed farmer grievances and alleged loopholes in...

TRUMP MAKES HISTORY; WORLD HOPES FOR PEACE IN PALESTINE

Though news outlets had not yet named him the...