Regulatory overreach

While better sense appears to have prevailed at the eleventh hour, with the Centre deciding to put on hold its order prohibiting NDTV India television channel from broadcasting/rebroadcasting for 24 hours on November 9, the issue nevertheless raises grave concerns over the increasingly prickly relationship between the government and large sections of the media. Since the order was issued last week, a lot of the debate has focussed on the different aspects of how such an act curtails freedom of speech and freedom of expression. While arguments have centred largely around whether the ban conforms to the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is critical to examine the specific provision of the Programme Code of the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act that has been invoked to take the channel off air for a day. Rule 6(1)(p), the provision under which the ban was imposed, states that no programme which contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces, can be carried by a cable channel. The rule also specifies that “media coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by an officer designated by the appropriate Government, till such operation concludes”. This is the first time this provision, the result of a 2015 amendment to the Cable Act, has been invoked. Given that it essentially means that a journalist cannot report on anything except what is being officially said, albeit under the special circumstances of an anti-terrorist operation, it is actually more disturbing that protests and condemnation have only followed after penal action was taken against a channel, and not when this provision was actually legislated.

That brings the focus on the intent, and the alacrity with which the Centre has seized upon this draconian provision. Not only did the Centre act on the recommendation for a ban by a committee — comprised of bureaucrats and which incidentally did not include a single professional journalist — it wilfully ignored well established institutional frameworks to ensure self-regulation in the media. The Minister of Information and Broadcasting M Venkaiah Naidu has since asserted that the Centre had rightfully acted in “national interest” as self-regulating bodies such as the News Broadcasting Standards Association of India did not suo motu take action against the “erring” channel.

While there can be no argument against the need for restraint on the part of the media in the coverage of any ongoing security operation — indeed, television broadcasters set up a self regulatory body after widespread criticism of the way the Mumbai terror attack was covered — the Centre’s action against NDTV smacks of regulatory overreach. As the Editors Guild of India has rightly observed, imposing a ban without resorting to judicial intervention or oversight goes against the spirit of the Constitution and is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is still not too late to set up such a mechanism to avoid future conflict.

COMMENT NOW