Content on television news channels, SC suggests “If you do not like them, then do not watch them”

On August 08, the Supreme Court declined to consider two petitions that requested the establishment of regulations and an independent board or media tribunal to address grievances regarding content on television news channels. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court including Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Abhay S Oka. The bench said that the viewers or audiences were free to watch such channels. It also highlighted that the freedom of speech and expression of the people involved in the industry would have to be considered. While hearing the matter, Justice Oka remarked, “Who compels you to watch all these channels? If you do not like them, then do not watch them. When some wrong thing is shown, it is also about perception. Is there not freedom of expression? Even if we say no media trials, how can we stop things on the internet and all? How can we grant such prayers? Who takes it seriously, tell us? There is freedom not to press the TV button.” He further added that “In a lighter vein, what all is said about judges on social media, Twitter; we do not take it seriously. Who will lay down guidelines? Tell your clients not to watch these news channels, and do something better with their time.”

The Supreme Court of India was hearing two PILs (Public Interest Litigations), one was filed by Delhi-based lawyer Reepak Kansal and another was filed by filmmaker Nilesh Navalakha and activist Nitin Memane. Lawyer Reepak Kansal filed PIL seeking the establishment of an independent regulatory body or authority for news broadcasters in order to tackle the issue of ‘sensational reporting’. He further alleged that ‘just for the sake of viewership and notoriety,’ scandalous coverage of critical issues results in “tarnishing” of the image of a community, an individual, a religious organization, or a political organization. He also mentioned that such content on the channels results in severe violence. Specifically, he appealed to the Supreme Court to impose limitations on broadcasting channels that engage in the "assassination of dignity" of individuals, communities, religious figures, and religious and political organizations, all under the guise of "freedom of the press".

Another PIL prayed for constituting a ‘media tribunal’ for hearing and adjudicating complaints against television channels and media networks. The plea further contended that the Union Ministry for Information and Broadcasting failed in completing its duties and submitted that self-regulation could not be an answer to the problem. While dismissing the plea, the top Court observed that a notice was issued in January 2021 in the matter and another notice in the lead petition was issued in August 2021. The bench pointed out that a committee of retired judges was already in place for addressing the matter. Also, the bench gave liberty to the counsel to move to the High Court. It ordered “Why can’t you go to the High Court, why [Article] 32 petition? Why should every matter be dealt with by the Supreme Court? Do you think the Hih Courts are incompetent to hear these matters? Do not forget we are all products of the High Courts”. Following this, a two-judge Supreme Court bench dismissed the petitions.