The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the NBA against a Bombay High Court verdict containing adverse observations about the lack of teeth in self-regulation of TV channels.
Pointing out that self-regulation of television channels has proven to be “ineffective”, the Supreme Court Monday said that it would issue guidelines to strengthen such regulation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud along with Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said that unless rules were made stringent, there was no compulsion on television channels to comply with the same, Bar and Bench reported. The bench further sought suggestions on the present penalty of Rs 1 lakh imposed on news channels for violation of News Broadcasters Association (NBA) guidelines.
CJI Chandrachud questioned, “You say TV channels practice self-restraint. I don’t know how many in court would agree with you. Everybody went berserk whether it was a murder etc. You preempt the investigation. What is the fine you impose? ₹1 lakh! How much does a channel earn in one day. Unless you make the rules, stringent no TV channel has no compulsion to comply. For any violation if there is a lakh penalty then what stops them?”
“This Court has to consider whether steps taken to frame self-regulatory mechanism needs to be strengthened with regard to framework,” the bench said in its order, according to Bar and Bench.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the NBA against a Bombay High Court verdict containing adverse observations about the lack of teeth in self-regulation of TV channels.
The bench remarked that it would tweak the Bombay High Court judgment, but would strengthen the regulations now, the report said.
While Senior Counsel Arvind Datar, appearing for the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) pushing for self-regulation of TV channels. Maintained that there cannot and should not be any control, the Court underlined that such regulation should be effective. “While we appreciate there has to be self-regulation, but the self-regulation has to be effective. Having a former Supreme Court judge is not enough. They are also bound by the regulations. How do you give bite to your regulations to make it more effective? The penalty should be a dislodgement fee sorts,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench.
CREDIT: THE INDIAN EXPRESS
