'Quest For Ratings Can't Justify Humiliating Others': Madras High Court Directs Channel To Air Public Apology For 'Trivialising' Freedom Fighter

The Madras High Court recently stressed on the media's obligation to maintain intellectual honesty and social responsibility in its broadcasts. The court added that in the quest for ratings, entertainment channels cannot distort national history or humiliate those whose sufferings gave the citizens constitutional liberty. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 370] “Entertainment is a legitimate and valuable pursuit, but the quest for ratings cannot justify the distortion of national history or the humiliation of those whose suffering made constitutional liberty possible. Commercial success and civic responsibility are not mutually exclusive,” the court said. Justice L Victoria Gowri held that a broadcaster has control over the content that is being disseminated. The court added that the broadcaster selects, schedules and approves the content before it is published and derives commercial benefit from its viewership. The court thus held that a broadcaster had a responsibility to review the content before publishing and cannot wriggle out of responsibility by saying that the program was created by an independent producer. “A broadcaster possesses institutional control over the means of dissemination. It selects the programme, schedules the telecast, approves promotional material and derives commercial benefit from viewership. The ultimate editorial gatekeeping function remains with the broadcaster. Contractual arrangements with an independent producer cannot operate as a shield against public accountability,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by Kanagavel Pandian, a social activist and President of “Makkal Thalaivan VOC Makkal Nala Peravai” organisation. The organisation worked for preserving the legacy of VO Chidambaram Pillai, a freedom fighter. The petitioner had approached the court seeking directions to the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police (Chennai City), and the Commissioner of Police (Madurai City) to register an FIR against the management of Sun TV Network for airing a promo of a programme, in which the participants allegedly trivialised the sacrifices of the freedom fighter. The program was proposed to be aired on Adithya TV, which was also under the management of Sun TV Network. The petitioner also submitted that though the participants had later apologised for their remarks, it was not adequate and the apology had to be broadcast on the respondent channel. The channel, on the other hand, submitted that soon after airing of the promo, the family of the freedom fighter had contacted the head of the channel and requested to remove/cancel the program. The channel submitted that upon request from the family, the channel had promptly cancelled the program and removed the promo, which was also appreciated by the freedom fighter's family. The channel also argued that the petitioner could not seek registration of an FIR since cognisance in a defamation case could be taken only based on complaint of an aggrieved person. It was submitted that when the family had accepted the channel's corrective measures, the plea by a social activist was not maintainable. The court noted that while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution, the court could not undertake statutory functions of the police or jurisdictional magistrate. The court noted that Section 222 of the BNSS dealt with cognisance of offence of defamation and Section 175 of the BNSS gave authority to the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider an application seeking investigation in appropriate cases. Thus, the court opined that it could not issue blanket direction to register an FIR. At the same time, the court also considered the contributions made by VO Chidambaram Pillai. While the court acknowledged the prompt response of the channel, the court added that the same did not extinguish the channel's editorial responsibility. The court thus directed the channel to telecast a clear, visible and intelligible public apology on Adithya TV, specifically stating that the statements contained in the promotional clip were inappropriate, historically insensitive and inconsistent with the respect owed to the sacrifices of the freedom fighter. The court added that the apology should be telecast during a prominent viewing a lot, and also uploaded on the official social media handles on which the promo was originally published. The court also directed the channel to formulate and implement a internal editorial-review protocol for programs and promotional materials referring to freedom fighters historically significant events and constitutionally sensitive subjects. The court also directed the channel to use its Corporate Social Responsibility funds to conduct annual State-level elocution competition concerning the life, sacrifices, legal career, Swadeshi enterprise and economic vision of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai. The court added...

'Quest For Ratings Can't Justify Humiliating Others': Madras High Court Directs Channel To Air Public Apology For 'Trivialising' Freedom Fighter

Upasana Sajeev

Media freedom is indispensable but its influence carries a moral responsibility, Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

'Quest For Ratings Can't Justify Humiliating Others': Madras High Court Directs Channel To Air Public Apology For 'Trivialising' Freedom Fighter

Upasana Sajeev

Media freedom is indispensable but its influence carries a moral responsibility, Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers