[Media Trial In Sushant Singh Rajput Case] Live-Updates Of Hearing From Bombay High Court

The "doomsday argument" that government control on media will lead to emergency and abuse is advanced.

Possibility of abuse is not a ground for not effectuating power and duty, says Kamat

Can there be a multifarious set of codes? Overarching regime in place and not possible to have a self-regulatory mechanism, says Kamat

Datar interjects. He appears for the NBSA - "New arguments being advanced".

In our vast country, I am told there are more than 700 channels and most channels not part of self-regulatory groups and thus, no teeth of enforceability.

These private bodies also do not say that they will enforce a programme code, they have an ethical code, says Kamat

Ultimately the so called self-regulators are representatives from various channels and when acts complained of egregious in nature, would it not be a case for being a judge in their own cause?, Kamat says

Self-regulation can be an addition but not a substitute.

The private bodies may not have the teeth of enforcement as far as their orders are concerned, says Kamat

Kamat says that once there is a binding licence, can the broadcasters say that they are not bound by it?

We get it, you accept it & you accept it as a whole, bench says.

Broadcasters not granted under section 4 of the telegraph act, says Counsel for NBSA now.

Then under which provision? The licence must be having the provision, bench says.

Court says that they would like to have a look at one of the licences to clarify this grey area.

Bench says that the court has been shown the definition of telegraph by the first time as well as section 4 which speaks of licence, although section 8 stipulates Revocation of licence as well.

We would like to now see what is this about, bench to Centre.

ASG says that the mechanism is self-regulatory and we (Centre) are taking action also. To say that we have not taken any action by the petitioner who has nothing to do with the current issue is incorrect.

Kamat cites the Beedi Leaves Case.

The arguments advanced by them is that the programme code is not binding, says Kamat.

Datar: Where have we said its not binding?

ASG Anil Singh interjects.