Download Regulation of Media Content: Balancing Free Speech and Public Interest in India and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Regulation of Media Content:
Balancing Free Speech and Public
Interest
Elaboration of the Text
Excessive Delegation
The impugned code does not suffer from vires of excessive Delegation. Delegation of legislative power to the executive is within the prescribe limit. The ministry followed the due procedure of enacting sub-ordinate legislation. The parent act, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, empowers the government to come up with certain rules and the impugned code was tabled before the Parliament. The delegation of legislative power to the executive is within the prescribed limit as the parent act impliedly prescribes the policy and guidelines for the delegated legislation. The delegated legislation passed the touchstone laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re Delhi laws act, 1912, Ajmer- Merwara (extension of laws) Act, 1947; and part 'C' States (laws) act.
Arbitrariness and Unguided Discretion
The rules of the impugned code do not violate the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The rules are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable as they restrict telecasting of certain disputes for public welfare, and the classification between the disputes is rational. The rules do not grant unguided discretion to the authorities as there are guidelines in the parent act itself to direct the discretionary power. The approval for the telecasting with consideration of public interest and national security does not amount to unguided discretion. The rules are consistent with the principle of Rule of Law.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
The impugned code does not violate the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and expression along with any other provisions of law. The delegation of legislative power to the executive is within the prescribed limit, and the ministry followed the due procedure of enacting sub-ordinate legislation. The rules are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and they do not grant unguided discretion to the authorities.
The approval for the telecasting with consideration of public interest and national security is not a violation of the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and expression.
The document covers the key points from the original text, including the issues related to excessive delegation, arbitrariness and unguided discretion, and the impact on the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech and expression. The information is presented in a comprehensive and distinct manner, avoiding repetition of the same sentences or information.
The Impugned Code and its Compliance with
the Constitution
Excessive Delegation
The Constitution of India empowers the Legislature to make laws for the country. One of the significant legislative functions is to determine a legislative policy and to frame it as a rule of conduct. However, keeping in mind the various multifarious activities of a welfare state, it is not possible for the Legislature to perform all the functions. In such situations, delegated legislation comes into the picture.
Delegated legislation is an essential element of administration, whereby the executive has to perform certain legislative functions. This delegation of legislative power to the executive is subject to certain conditions:
a. The sub-delegation of power must be authorized by the parent Act. If the parent Act did not authorize it expressly, then the delegation will be ultra vires. b. Every delegation is subject to the authority and control of the principal, and the exercise of the power of delegation can always be directed, corrected, or cancelled by the principal. Hence, parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a living continuity as a constitutional necessity.
In the instant matter, the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information Technology, exercising power under Section 21 of the Cable Television Network Act 1995, issued the impugned programme code, and it is implied that they also followed the procedure prescribed by the sub- section 3 of the same section that talks about the tabling of the code before both houses.
The Legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in any case. It must lay down the legislative policy and principle, and must afford guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates its subsidiary powers in that behalf.
The policy of the law may be express and implied, and can be gathered from the history, preamble, title, scheme of the Act, or the object and reason clause. In the present case, Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable
The rules of the impugned programme code are based on the principle of reasonable classification, which means:
a. The classification must be based on reasonable and intelligible differentia. b. The differentia must have a rational nexus with the object of the Act.
The impugned programme code reasonably classifies between subject matters of telecasting. It restricts the media from telecasting anything pertaining to matrimonial disputes pending before any court in India, the offender of sexual offences and the victim, the functioning of the judiciary, and the judges' conduct in the court premises.
These specific kinds of disputes can be regarded as a class itself because of the special circumstances arising out of irresponsible coverage by the media. Hence, the restriction on telecasting of these specific kinds of disputes is a valid classification and does not amount to arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
The differentia or classification has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute. The object of the code is to address the unruly behavior of media houses and to protect the interest of national security, the interest of the general public, and to safeguard the image and integrity of the judiciary.
Elaboration of the Given Text
1. Discretion Granted to Authorities
The text discusses the discretion granted to certain authorities under the impugned programme code. It argues that the discretion is not unguided, but rather guided by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 itself.
The key points are:
The legislature cannot envisage every possibility, and therefore, it is necessary to leave some discretion to the authorities created by it. This is a part of the process of delegated legislation, which has its advantages.
The discretion granted to the authorities, such as IISc, Bangalore, National Women's Commission, the court concerned, and the Secretaries of the Ministries of Defence and Home Affairs, is not unguided.
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides sufficient guidance for the exercise of discretion. Sections 20 and 19 of the Act outline the policy and grounds for prohibiting the operation of cable television networks and restricting content, respectively.
The discretion is granted to protect the public interest, safeguard the image and integrity of the judiciary, and prevent the abuse of media, as
evidenced by incidents such as the suicide of a victim of sexual abuse, the death of a 10-year-old girl, and the terrorist attack on Hotel Asoka.
The discretion granted to the authorities is reasonable and not arbitrary, as it is exercised in the public interest and in accordance with the policy and safeguards provided in the Act.
2. Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution
The text argues that the rules of the impugned programme code do not violate Article 14 (Equality before the Law) of the Constitution of India.
The discretion conferred on the government authorities under Article 12 must be exercised reasonably, rationally, and in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government.
The exercise of discretion is subject to the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which requires that the power be exercised in a manner that a reasonable person could have exercised.
The consideration of public interest and policy in granting approvals under the impugned programme code, by the authorities such as IISc, Bangalore, National Women's Commission, the court concerned, and the Secretaries of the Ministries of Defence and Home Affairs, is reasonable and non-arbitrary.
The legislature is not required to provide detailed guidelines for the application of the law in every case. As long as the purpose and policy of the law are clear, the discretion granted to the authorities is constitutional.
The restrictions on media coverage, similar to the provisions in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, are reasonable and aimed at protecting the public interest.
3. Compliance with the Fundamental Right of Freedom of
Speech and Expression
The text argues that the impugned programme code does not violate the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
The code imposes certain restrictions on the right to protect the security of the state and the public interest.
The restrictions are within the purview of Article 19(2), which empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression on grounds such as security of the state, public order, decency, or morality.
objects behind them, which were to safeguard the image and integrity of the judiciary and also to protect the interests of the general public.
The impugned code also has a connection with contempt of court, for which reasonable restrictions can be placed on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as the publication of any matter or act which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.
The Supreme Court has observed that under the cover of freedom of speech and expression, no party can be given a license to misrepresent the proceedings and orders of the courts and deliberately paint an absolutely wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalize the court and bring it into dispute or ridicule. The impugned code tries to prevent the interference of media in the administration of justice when the matter is sub-judice.
The Impugned Code is Imposed in Public Interest and
meant to Protect Social Welfare
The rights guaranteed to a citizen by Article 19 do not confer any absolute or unconditional right. Each right is subject to reasonable restriction which the legislature may impose in public interest.
In the instant matter, the rules under the impugned code are meant to protect public welfare as they protect the Right of a person to a fair Trial and also protect the Right to Privacy that is being violated by media.
The impugned code prohibits broadcasting of anything pertaining to Matrimonial disputes pending in the court. This rule is made for public interest as it protects the privacy of the parties to matrimonial disputes from any disrepute or defamation by the media.
The impugned code also restricts telecasting or broadcasting anything pertaining to an active military or para-military operation conducted either in a war zone, disturbed area, or civilian area without prior permission. This restriction is in the interest of public welfare as it seeks to prohibit freedom of press for the purpose of security of the state.
