The Supreme Court demanded that "some bite" be added to the lenient self-regulatory mechanism, which fines TV channels Rs 100,000 for airing inflammatory programmes or sensationalising criminal case coverage without regard to reputations. This was done without limiting the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
“When it is a murder, suicide or shootout case, almost every channel goes berserk. By sensationalising coverage of criminal cases, TV channels virtually preempt criminal investigation,” a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
The bench said the court was as concerned as the TV channels about freedom of expression. “But when they are intruding into the privacy of individuals, presume guilt of an accused instead of innocence (till proven guilty by a court of law) through their reportage, it needs to be strictly regulated. We are not painting all with the same brush. Obviously, there are responsible channels,” it said.
The sanction for telecasting programmes that damaged reputations, damaged social fabric, or impeded criminal investigations, according to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, should be proportional to the amount of advertising revenue the channel received for that programme. He called the fine of Rs 100,000 wholly insufficient.
The CJI-led bench concurred and stated that the fine amount, which was set in 2008, was insufficient. In response, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) petitioned the Centre to respond to the matter.
For NBA, senior advocate Arvind Datar said the self-regulatory body was headed by Justice A K Sikri and that he would seek guidance from him as well as previous chairperson Justice R V Raveendran, both retired SC judges, and suggest ways to strengthen the self-regulatory mechanism.