The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Union governmentto consider working out the modalities for regulating the broadcastmedia through a statutory framework, including provision of amechanism to address grievances. It stressed the need to establish an autonomous and statutorymechanism to regulate the broadcast media, including televisionchannels, in view of the upsurge in the industry and its impact onsociety in general and certain segments, such as children, inparticular. However, the court made it clear that it would not be a regulatorymechanism to control the broadcast media by an outside authority,but a statutory framework for regulation by the media itself on thelines of the statutory bodies that regulate professional standardsof doctors, chartered accountants and advocates. A special Division Bench comprising Justices Ajit J. Gunjal andB.V. Nagarathna was disposing of a public interest litigationpetition filed by the Advocates' Association, Bangalore. The association had sought a CBI probe into the March 2 violenceinvolving advocates, mediapersons and police at the City CivilCourt complex, besides seeking directions to regulate the media,particularly television channels. It alleged that some channels hadbroadcast "false news" about the death of a couple ofpolice personnel during the violence and that incited the policepersonnel to indulge in large-scale violence against lawyers. On the freedom of the press, particularly the electronic media,Justice Nagarathna, in a separate judgment concurring with theother views expressed by her senior companion judge on the Bench,observed: "While truthful dissemination of information is anessential requirement of any broadcasting channel, sensationalismin the form of ‘Breaking News', ‘Flash News' or in anyother form must be curbed." "While there can be no two opinions that there has to befreedom guaranteed to the print and electronic media in the contextof Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, yet, one cannot losesight of Article 19 (2) [which imposes reasonable restriction on 19(1) (a)], to achieve a balance," Justice Nagarathna said. "Broadcasting cannot lead to an adverse impact on theintegrity of India and the security of the state, public order,decency or morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamationor incitement to an offence, even though Parliament did not chooseto include a clause enabling the imposition of reasonablerestriction in public interest." However, Justice Nagarathna said the concept of regulation ofbroadcast media should not be understood to mean control by thegovernment or the powers that be. "No doubt, self-regulation is the most ideal form ofregulation. But having regard to the upsurge in innumerablebroadcasting channels, some of which are in their nascent stage,self-regulation without the intervention of any legal framework, inmy view, is inefficacious." Though there was the National Broadcasting Standards Authority, abody of broadcasters for self-regulation, it did not carry anylegal sanctity, which was a prerequisite for compliance in mostcases of falling standards or professional transgression bymediapersons/broadcasters. I am an expert from pcbboard-assembly.com, while we provides the quality product, such as China Wire Harness Assembly , Custom Cable Assembly Manufacturer, Printed Circuit Board Assembly,and more.
Related Articles -
China Wire Harness Assembly, Custom Cable Assembly Manufacturer,
|