Hate-Speech | 'Offending Anchors Must Be Taken Off Air; Media Should Not Create Division' : Supreme Court

While hearing a batch of petitions filed in relation to hate speech incidents, the Supreme Court on Friday expressed several concerns about the manner in which TV channels are functioning."Everything is driven by TRP. Channels are competing against each other. They sensationalise things, serve an agenda. You create divisions in society because of the visual element. The visual medium can influence you much more than a newspaper....Our audience, are they mature enough to see this content?", Justice Joseph, the presiding judge, orally said."If the anchors of TV program are themselves part of the problem then what can be done?.NBSA should not be biased. How many times have you taken off anchors?", Justice Joseph asked the counsel representing the News Broadcasters and Digital Association."In a live program, the key to the fairness of the program is held by the anchor. If the anchor is not fair...the anchor would want to project some side, would mute other side, won't question one side...It's an indisputable insignia of bias. Media people must learn… they have to see that they’re occupying position of great strength and what they’re saying impacts whole country. They should realise that they have no right to speak their minds whichever way they want,” Justice Joseph added. The judge opined that offending anchors should be "taken off air" and hefty fines should be imposed on channels which are violating the program code. "You hit them monetarily where it matters"Justice Joseph also criticised the manner in which TV channels used words against the man accused of peeing in an Air India flight. "Nobody should be denigrated. Everyone has the right to dignity", he said.A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech. The following were the broad category cases - the petitions filed against 'UPSC Jihad' campaign by Sudarshan News TV, the petitions filed against 'Corona jihad' campaign in the wake of Tablighi Jamaat issue, the petitions filed against Dharam Sansad meetings where anti-Muslim statements were allegedly made, and petitions seeking broad guidelines to curb hate speech.When the matter was taken, Justice KM Joseph asked about the "general climate", since the last order. It may be recalled that in October last year, the bench led by Justice Joseph had directed that there should be suo motu action by the police against hate speech, regardless of the religion of the speaker."What is the general climate, has it become better or worse?", Justice Joseph asked."We can't draw a general conclusion. One spark and everything flares up", Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said.Advocate Nizam Pasha brought to the attention of the bench certain statements made by Suresh Chavhanke against Muslims, Christians, Christmas celebrations etc. Pasha read out comments such as 'Christians are less than 2% in India but their Christmas celebrations are imposed on the 98%', 'Hindus should learn from Buddhists of Myanmar who chased out Rohingyas' etc. These comments are widely amplified and circulated through social media, he added.Stand of Uttarakhand, Uttar PradeshDeputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi informed the bench said that the State has been following the Court's order and has registered 23 suo moto cases after the last order. However, he flagged certain concerns and sought for some safeguards as far as suo motu FIRs are concerned. "In a suo motu case, there are some practical difficulties. When a police officer suo motu registers FIR, he becomes the complainant...and the line between investigation and complaint becomes blurred...".Justice Joseph told the Uttarakhand Dy.AG that mere registration of FIRs is not sufficient. Sethi replied that in suo motu FIRs, there will be chargesheets for sure, as police would not want to say that their colleague who registered the FIR is incorrect."Chargesheet has to be filed with reasonable dispatch and should encompass full fledged investigation. It shouldn't be for namesake", Justice Joseph stated while adding, "This(hate speech) is a complete menace and nothing short of it".Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad informed that over 581 cases were registered and about 160 were suo motu cases. Justice Joseph noted that there is a "quantum leap" in the number of cases.Broadcast guidelinesAdvocate Shadan Farasat highlighted the issue of strengthening the regulatory network under the Cable TV Regulation Act against programmes spewing hatespeech.At this juncture, Justice KM Joseph turned to the counsel representing the News Broadcasting and Digital Association and asked what has been done about hate speech programs."Everything is driven by TRP. Channels are competing against each other. They sensationalize somethings. You create divisions in society because of the visual element. The visual medium can influence you much more than a newspaper..The audience, are they mature enough to see...

Hate-Speech | 'Offending Anchors Must Be Taken Off Air; Media Should Not Create Division' : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Hate-Speech | 'Offending Anchors Must Be Taken Off Air; Media Should Not Create Division' : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers