A jury of their peers

Media freedoms come with responsibilities. A stronger Press Council, composed of media professionals, would be the best regulator

The Indian Express carried a report about two television reporters, from India TV and ABP News, accused of blackmail for allegedly trying to extort Rs 20 lakh from a person by threatening to implicate him in a false case of rape (‘Two television reporters accused of sting and blackmail: ‘Rs 20 lakh or we air sex tape’’, November 9). Earlier, Jindal Steel alleged that Zee News attempted to extort Rs 100 crore from it. There are other allegations of such practices by media personnel. Paid news is apparently a common practice. Madhu Kishwar, a senior journalist herself, said on Rajya Sabha TV that many media people are bribable and manipulable.

When I spoke of regulating the media, there was a hue and cry in a section of it, which painted me as some kind of dictator who, at the behest of the government, wanted to gag or muzzle the media and crush media freedom.

Although I have expressed my views earlier, I would like to give a comprehensive clarification.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. In our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a), which provides for media freedom (as part of freedom of speech), is subject to Article 19(2), which states that the freedom in Article 19(1) (a) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. Thus, there cannot be freedom to defame, incite religious riots, or extort and blackmail.

There is a difference between control and regulation. Where there is control, there is no freedom; while under regulation, there is freedom but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. I am in favour of regulation and am opposed to control. The question arises: who is to do this regulation? I am opposed to regulation by the government, but am in favour of regulation by an independent statutory authority like the Press Council of India.

The Press Council has, apart from its chairman, 28 members, 20 of whom are representatives of the press (six owners, six editors, seven working journalists and one from a news agency). These 20 members are not appointed by the government but elected by the press. Of the other eight members, five are members of Parliament and there is one person each from the Bar Council of India, the UGC and the Sahitya Akademi. Decisions in the Press Council are taken by majority vote and even I have to respect the verdict of the majority.

If the Press Council Act is amended and broadcast media comes under the Press Council (which can be renamed the “Media Council”), it can have an additional 20 members from broadcast media. Hence, 40 of 48 members will be media representatives. If this media council decides to take penal action by majority vote against a media person or media house, it will be a judgment by one’s peers and thus a form of self-regulation.

It may be mentioned that the Bar Council can suspend the licence of a lawyer, but Bar Council members are themselves lawyers. Similarly, the Medical Council has doctors as its members and can suspend a doctor’s licence. The proposed media council should have the power to suspend the licence of a media person or outlet, but such a suspension should be by majority vote of the media council.

This media council must be statutory and have penal powers, including the power to suspend licences. The News Broadcasting Standards Authority, which professes “self-regulation”, is a non-statutory body with no penal powers and is therefore toothless.

The Press Council has only the power of admonition or censure and no power to impose a fine or suspend a licence. I have advocated enlarging this body and making it a media council with penal powers, but the penal power should not be exercised by the chairman or the government, but by a majority of members. It will thus be a judgment by one’s peers. What reasonable objection can there be to this suggestion? Objecting to it implies that some media houses do not even trust their peers.

Those who accuse me of trying to crush media freedom can see my track record. I have fought for media freedom every time it was threatened, whether in Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, the Karnataka legislative assembly, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, etc. I was the strongest critic of the arrest of the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and Virbhadra Singh’s statement that he would break the camera of a media person. I genuinely believe that the media should be broadly free, and I have appreciated the good work done by the media in exposing scams. There are many excellent journalists who are doing a good job.

At the same time, I have also said that freedom comes hand-in-hand with responsibility. Evidently, media owners accustomed to having a free ride and making a lot of money (through advertisement revenue, etc), or who are using their media house to protect their other businesses where they are under suspicion of malpractice (one newspaper owner is said to have several other businesses, like sugar factories, coal blocks, etc), do not want any kind of regulation. If this attitude continues, I am afraid it will be counterproductive and may ultimately result in the severe curtailment of media freedom.

Published in The Indian EXPRESS on 17/11/2012

Indian Media - Wake Up Hanuman!

The test of every system is whether under it the standard of living of the masses is rising or falling. The same applies to the Indian media too. If freedom of the media is helping raise the standard of living of the Indian people, it is a good thing and must be supported. If, however such freedom is keeping the Indian people backward and poor it is a bad thing and must be suppressed.  It follows that freedom of the media has by itself no value, and it will have value only if it helps improve the lives of the Indian masses. And the lives of our people will improve if scientific ideas are propagated and backward and unscientific ideas like casteism, communalism, and superstitions are combated. Today the Indian people are facing terrible problems---massive poverty (it is estimated that 75-80 % of our people are earning 25 rupees a day), huge unemployment, sky-rocketing prices (vegetables cost about Rs. 40 a kg. ), lack of any proper healthcare for the poor people, child malnutrition (about half our children are malnourished), farmers suicides (about 47 every day for the last 15 years, making a total of about 250,000   a world record of farmers suicides ), etc And yet our media (particularly the broadcast media ) devotes 90 % of its coverage to lives of film stars, cricket, and glamour. A few years back the Lakme Fashion parade was covered by 512 accredited journalists, at a time when the farmers who grew the cotton worn by the models in the Fashion Parade were committing suicide one hour's flight away in the Vidarbha region. Only one or two journalists covered those suicides locally.  Is this a responsible way in which our media has been behaving ? Is not our media behaving like the French Queen Marie Antoinette, who when told that the people have no bread said that they could eat cake. Amitabh Bachchan's 70th birthday, Kareena kapoor's affairs, Sachin Tendolkar's 100th century, Rahul Dravid's retirement from cricket, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna's death, Rakhi Sawant's swayamvar, etc-----these are depicted as the real issues facing the nation, not poverty, not unemployment, not price rise, not healthcare, not malnutrition. Several T.V. channels show astrology, which is pure superstition and humbug, and therefore tends to perpetuate backwardness of our people. In my opinion there should not be any freedom to show such superstitions. The corporatization and crass commercialization of the media is no doubt largely responsible for this irresponsible behaviour. While corporates may have a legal right to own and run the media, this freedom has to be coupled with responsibilities. There cannot be freedom to to defame, incite religious, caste, regional or racial riots, , extort and blackmail, hold media trials, practice paid news, etc Hence a balance has to be struck between freedom and responsibility. A section of the media has misunderstood me and depicted me as some sort of tyrant who wishes to muzzle or gag the media at the behest of the government, when the truth is that I have been throughout my one year as Chairman of the Press Council fighting for media freedom, and raised my voice of protest against attacks against media freedom and media persons, whether in J&K, Maharashtra, U.P. , West Bengal, Karnataka, etc. I strongly criticized the arrest of the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, and the threat of a senior politician to break the camera of a journalist. At the same time I have been constantly advising media people to act responsibly and in a manner which will benefit the Indian people. This they can do by spreading scientific ideas among the masses as scientific thinking is the only way out to solve the country's huge problems. I regard the Indian media as Hanuman, and I regard myself as Jambawant. The Indian people are Lord Rama, and it was the duty of Hanuman to serve Lord Rama. However, Hanuman forgot his powers and duty because of the curse of a sage. Like Jambawant, I have been reminding Hanuman (the media ) of its duty to Lord Rama (the Indian people ).. The Indian media has to serve the Indian people, and if it does so it will win the respect and admiration of the people.    -Justice Katju

Note on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India regarding media coverage of Court Proceedings

After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd & Ors Vs. Securities Exchange Board of India & anr delivered on 11.9.2012 there have been several critical comments about the same. In my opinion it is a balanced judgment which I agree with.

Ordinarily there should be freedom for the media to report court proceedings, because it is through the media that the people get to know about the functioning of the courts.

In feudal society the king was supreme and the people were subordinate to him. However in a modern democracy this relationship is reversed, and now the people are supreme, and all authorities, whether legislative, executive or judicial are only servants of the people. Surely the master has a right to know how his servant functions. The media is an agency of the people through which people get to know how state authorities, including the Courts, are functioning. It logically follows that ordinarily there should be freedom for the media to report court proceedings.

However, no rule can be absolute or rigid. The duty of the court is to do justice, and while ordinarily there should be freedom to the media to report court proceedings, in exceptional circumstances where the Judge feels that injustice would be done to an accused or defendant in a trial if the media reports the court proceedings, then the court has always power to prevent such reporting so that justice may be done. In fact this was the law even before the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court because the court has always this power, because the Judge has to do justice and prevent prejudice to a party if caused by reporting court proceedings. The Judge has the power to control and regulate proceedings in his court so that justice is done. In fact in camera proceedings in exceptional cases are sometimes resorted to.

The Supreme Court has observed in its judgment that a postponement order should be passed only in cases in which there is a substantial risk to the fairness of the trial or for appropriate administration of justice. However, the Supreme Court added that the postponement order should be for a limited period, and only in appropriate cases. I do not see what reasonable objection can there be to this view.

No right can be absolute, and the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. Hence, the view taken by the Supreme Court is a correct and balanced views, and in fact this was the law even before its clarification by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

Media cannot reject regulation

If red lines can be drawn for the legal and medical professions, why should it be any different for profit-making newspapers and TV channels?

I have not read the Private Member's Bill on media regulation that Meenakshi Natarajan was scheduled to move in Parliament last week so I am not in a position to comment upon it, but I am certainly of the opinion that the media (both print and electronic) needs to be regulated. Since my ideas on this issue have generated some controversy they need to be clarified.

I want regulation of the media, not control. The difference between the two is that in control there is no freedom, in regulation there is freedom but subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The media has become very powerful in India and can strongly impact people's lives. Hence it must be regulated in the public interest.

The media people keep harping on Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. But they deliberately overlook or underplay Article 19 (2) which says that the above right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, State security, public order, decency, morality or in relation to defamation or incitement to an offence.

NOT ABSOLUTE

Thus, while there should be freedom for the media and not control over it, this freedom must be exercised in a manner not to adversely affect the security of the state, public order, morality, etc. No right can be absolute, every right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The reason for this is that human beings are social creatures. No one can live in isolation, everyone has to live in society. And so an individual should not exercise her freedom in a manner so as to harm others or society, otherwise she will find it difficult to survive.

Media people often talk of self-regulation. But media houses are owned by businessmen who want profit. There is nothing wrong in making profits, but this must be coupled with social responsibilities. Media owners cannot say that they should be allowed to make profits even if the rest of society suffers. Such an attitude is self-destructive, and it is the media owners who will suffer in the long run if they do not correct themselves now. The way much of the media has been behaving is often irresponsible, reckless and callous. Yellow journalism, cheap sensationalism, highlighting frivolous issues (like lives of film stars and cricketers) and superstitions and damaging people and reputations, while neglecting or underplaying serious socio-economic issues like massive poverty, unemployment, malnourishment, farmers' suicides, health care, education, dowry deaths, female foeticide, etc., are hallmarks of much of the media today. Astrology, cricket (the opium of the Indian masses), babas befooling the public, etc., are a common sight on Television channels.

Paid ‘news' is the order of the day in some newspapers and channels where you have to pay to be in the news. One senior political leader told me things are so bad that politicians in some places pay money to journalists who attend their press conferences, and sometimes even to those who do not, to ensure favourable coverage. One TV channel owner told me that the latest Baba (who is dominating the scene nowadays) pays a huge amount for showing his meetings on TV. Madhu Kishwar, a very senior journalist herself, said on Rajya Sabha TV that many journalists are bribable and manipulable.

The media claims self-regulation. But by what logic? How can the News Broadcasters Association or the Broadcast Editors Association regulate TV channels driven by profit motive and high TRP ratings? Almost every section of society is regulated. Lawyers are a free profession, but their profession is regulated inasmuch as their licence can be suspended or cancelled by the Bar Council for professional misconduct. Similarly the licences of doctors, chartered accountants, etc., can be suspended/cancelled by their regulatory bodies. Judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court can be impeached by Parliament for misconduct. But the media claims that no action should be taken against it for violating journalistic ethics. Why? In a democracy everyone has to be accountable, but the media claims it should be accountable only to itself ...The NBA and BEA claim self-regulation. Let me ask them: how many licences of TV channels have you suspended or cancelled till now? So far as we know, only one channel was awarded a fine, at which it withdrew from the body, and then was asked to come back. How many other punishments have you imposed? Let us have some details, instead of keeping everything secret. Let the meetings of the NBA and BEA be televised so as to ensure transparency and accountability (which Justice Verma has been advocating vociferously for the judiciary).

Let me quote from an article by Abhishek Upadhyaya, Editor, Special Projects,Dainik Bhaskar:

“It appears that the BEA was founded to collectively use intimidatory tactics in favour of a select few players after NBA failed to do so. The NBA is so weak, so feeble in its exercise of power that it can't confroSelf Rs 1 lakh on the channel which then walked out of the Association.

“The group of broadcasters found themselves completely helpless, couldn't take any action and finally surrendered meekly before the channel. The offending channel issued a statement saying that its return has come after “fundamental issues raised by the channel against the disregard to NBA's rules and guidelines were appreciated by the association's directors…” The head of India TV, Rajat Sharma, then proceeded to join the board of NBA, and the channel's managing editor, Vinod Kapri, returned to the Authority in the eminent editors' panel!

“This was the turning point in the so-called self-regulation mechanism of electronic media. It became clear that all concerned had made an unwritten, oral understanding not to raise a finger on their own brethren in future. BEA was the next step in this direction, formed on 22 August, 2009 with a few electronic media editors in the driving seat. Since its inception this body has been irrationally screaming in the interest of a select few. The editors of this body announced some tender sops from time to time to publicise its good image and thwart any regulatory attempt in advance”.

SELF-REGULATION

If the broadcast media claims self-regulation, then on the same logic everyone should be allowed self-regulation. Why then have laws at all, why have a law against theft, rape or murder? Why not abolish the Indian Penal Code and ask everyone to practise self-regulation? The very fact that there are laws proves that self-regulation is not sufficient, there must also be some external regulation and fear of punishment.

I may clarify here that I am not in favour of regulation of the media by the government but by an independent statutory authority like the Press Council of India. The Chairman of this body is not selected by the government but by a three-member selection committee consisting of (1) The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (who is the Vice-President of India) (2) The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and (3) One representative of the Press Council.

The Press Council has 28 members, of which 20 are from the Press, five members of Parliament, and 3 from other bodies (The Bar Council of India, UGC and Sahitya Academy). The decisions of the Press Council are taken by a majority vote. Therefore, I am not a dictator who can ride roughshod on the views of others. Several of my proposals were rejected by the majority, and I respected their verdict. If the electronic media also comes under the Press Council (which can be renamed the Media Council), representatives of the electronic media will also be on this body, which will be totally democratic. Why then are the electronic media people so furiously and fiercely opposing my proposal? Obviously because they want a free ride in India without any kind of regulation and freedom to do what they will.


I would welcome a healthy debate on this issue.

Published in The Hindu On 2/05/2012