_edited.png)
Authored By - SIMRAN KIRTI
Meta Description: The Supreme Court of India raises concerns about the effectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism established by media associations, emphasizing the need for stronger regulation. Get insights into the court's discussions and the implications for media ethics.
Keywords: Supreme Court, self-regulatory mechanism, media association, media ethics, regulation effectiveness, Chief Justice Chandrachud, media coverage, Sushant Singh Rajput case, responsible journalism, penalty structure, Bombay High Court judgment.
The Supreme Court of India recently voiced its displeasure with the News Broadcasters and Digital Association's (NBDA) self-regulatory method, namely the News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority (NBSA). With Chief Justice DY Chandrachud at the helm, the court stressed the importance of a strong self-regulatory system for the media.
The bench emphasised the significance of an efficient self-regulatory mechanism, despite the NBDA's opposition to both pre- and post-censorship of news channels through statutory processes. Since 2008, sanctions for infractions of the NBDA have remained at Rs 1 lakh, prompting the Chief Justice to question their adequacy. He proposed for fines that are proportional to the revenue that news outlets generate from broadcasting contentious news.
The News Broadcasters Association (NBDA), formerly known as the News Broadcasters Association, filed the aforementioned case in response to the Bombay High Court's negative judgements on the media industry's self-regulatory process. The High Court made its comments in a January 2021 judgement regarding a string of PILs involving the media's reporting on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued on behalf of the NBDA that the Bombay High Court unfairly questioned the credibility and effectiveness of the self-regulatory process. While the NBDA is not a government agency, he stressed its importance in handling complaints and promoting ethical reporting. Datar compared the self-regulatory body to a different kind of dispute resolution process that people might use to complain about inappropriate media.
Datar said that the media attention around the Sushant Singh Rajput case contributed to the development of the self-regulatory mechanism. He brought up how the NBDA's strategy coincides with the Supreme Court-approved Nariman Committee report, which promotes a self-regulatory approach to media regulation and places emphasis on avoiding state control. Datar noted that the self-regulatory body has dealt with more than 4,000 complaints, which have often resulted in public apologies and financial fines for infringing media channels.
After hearing Datar's arguments, Chief Justice Chandrachud voiced scepticism about the self-regulatory mechanism, saying it wouldn't be effective in situations when media coverage hampered criminal investigations or damaged individuals' reputations. The importance of a strong self-regulatory system was emphasised, and he cast doubt on the assumption that most media outlets practise self-restraint.
It was stated by the Chief Justice that the media went "berserk" following the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. He also voiced doubts about the severity of the penalties, saying that Rs 1 lakh fines might not be enough to discourage offenders. While the court is not interested in pre- or post-censorship, Chandrachud emphasised the importance of a strong self-regulatory framework for the media. He also stressed the importance of the self-regulatory body's efficiency being consistent with the self-regulation premise.
As counsel for some of the respondents in this case, Amit Pai sided with those who questioned the efficacy of the NBDA's self-regulatory system. He gave the example of a TV channel that was fined Rs 1 lakh by the NBDA but nevertheless decided to join another association.
The bench has ordered a reply affidavit to be filed within three weeks in order to improve the self-regulatory structure. It also highlighted the need to reevaluate the penalties that have been in place since 2008. The court plans to tweak the Bombay High Court ruling, further strengthening the rules to create a more effective system of self-regulation.
This case highlights the Supreme Court's responsibility to decide if the current self-regulatory process has to be strengthened in terms of its structure and the ultimate orders it can make. The court's decision in this case would likely have far-reaching effects on media regulation and self-regulation in India.
WhatsApp group link -
Follow us on LinkedIn -
Those interested in reading *News* , can join this group -
Comments