Is the government so helpless in front of TV news channels?

Posted on 16th Oct 2020 by rohit kumar

India's Attorney General KK Venugopal has expressed concern about the 'media trial'. In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, he said that the media's comments on many pending cases are like contempt of court.

 

According to media reports, the Attorney General told the court, "Today, the print media and electronic media comment on pending cases unabashedly and try to influence the thinking of the judges and the general public. This is causing serious damage to the institute.". "

 

KK Venugopal said these things during the hearing of a 2009 contempt case against Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The hearing of this case is being conducted by a bench of Justices AM Khan Wilkar, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari.

 

KK Venugopal said, "When a surety petition comes up for hearing, the channel starts showing the conversation between the accused and someone. It can do a lot of harm to the accused."

 

His point is being linked to the recent case of Sushant Singh Rajput and Riya Chakraborty, in which several news channels showed parts of WhatsApp chat.

 

He also placed an example of the Rafale case before the Supreme Court. He said, "The day the Rafale case was scheduled to be heard, an article was published on the same day, with some documents commenting on the case. This issue needs to be resolved."

 

Senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan did not agree with this and said that the media cannot be stopped from commenting only on this basis, as the matter is under consideration. In support of this argument, Dhawan mentioned some orders of foreign courts.

 

Many questions are also being raised on these things said in the Attorney General's court. He is the biggest legal officer of the central government i.e. the representative of the government. Anything he says means that the government is saying that.

 

So the question is why the central government is saying this. It has the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. There are many guidelines regarding media and there are many rules and regulations.

 

Why is the government going to the Supreme Court and making such complaints and why does it not take action on the TV news channels themselves, who have objections to these methods of work?

 

For this, it is important to first understand what the government can do in this matter and what not?

 

Supreme Court lawyer Virag Gupta says that the government advertises and licenses TV news media. But the government also has many types of laws.

 

At the same time, media analyst Mukesh Kumar says that the government tells its helplessness, but the steps it can take, it does not even take.

 

Journalist Manisha Pandey says that the government does not take action because some channels are advancing the same agenda and in the cases where media trials are done, at times some political agenda is working.

 

Several aspects of the matters under consideration

 

However, Virag Gupta says that there are many aspects of the cases under consideration in the court.

 

The first aspect is the court. If a case is pending and an attempt is being made to influence the matter through electronic media, print media, or social media, then it is an intervention in court cases and here it is between court and media.

 

There are several orders of the Supreme Court regarding the reporting of media in pending cases. The apex court had also said in 2012 that if the media coverage seems to have the opposite effect on a trial, then the media can be temporarily prevented from reporting the case.

 

There are no special laws for the freedom of journalists in India, but under Article 19 of the Constitution, all citizens have freedom of expression. However, there is also a provision for a reasonable restriction on this freedom.

 

Contempt of court can be the basis of reasonable restriction on freedom of expression.

 

The other side tells the accused, whose fault has not been proved. The third is the afflicted side. And fourth, if the case is of a criminal trial, then it is the responsibility of the government to take the whole matter to its logical end.

 

Civil cases are between individuals. Criminal cases are between the government and the accused. And that government is usually the state government. If the CBI is there, then it is the central government.

 

According to Virag Gupta, in this way all the people are directly or indirectly its share in these matters. And everyone has their role.

 

Says Mukesh Kumar, "The government also has a weak side in it. The judiciary is also feeling a little helpless in this matter. Norms remain the norm for those who cover the judiciary, but cases of violating them have increased considerably." "

 

They say that there should be an organization that constantly monitors them and controls them. Otherwise, it does not belong to anyone. Because there are around 350-400 news channels in India. In such a case, keeping an eye on the contents of their day and night and taking any action in time, there is no process nor any organization for this.

 

They demand that there should be an institution independent of the government, which has the right to take action. Mukesh Kumar says that if it does not happen, it will be difficult for both the government and the judiciary to control such cases.

 

However, there is no strong control over TV media. It is their own 'regulator'. But it is not yet seen how much control they have over it.

 

Independent media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy all over the world. Under the control of media, the role of autonomous units in place of governments is considered right. For the sake of fairness, the media take the path of self-regulation.

 

News channels in India have done the same till now. The 'News Broadcasting Standards Authority' (NBSA) has set journalistic standards for its members and the institution listens to complaints against its member channels. There is also a Press Council of India to regulate print media.

 

Difficult even if the government takes action.

 

However, it is also said that if the government works to control the media too much, then it will be accused of freedom of expression and suppressing the media.

 

But Mukesh Kumar alleges that there is complete media in the pocket of the government and the government is getting the benefit of these channels.

 

Virag Gupta says that this crisis is not a crisis of the courts, the government, or the media. This crisis is about how issues related to the public are being sidelined through debate on misleading issues in the country.