SCHOOL OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
A RESEARCH PAPER ON:
Powerless
Watchdogs: A Study on Diminished Powers of Indian Media Regulatory Bodies
BY
Shivam Vashisht
(Student 2nd Year, BBA LLB, Manipal
University Jaipur)
Under the Guidance of
Assistant
Professor Shruti Bitoliya
(Manipal University Jaipur, FOL)
September Of 2023ur
CERTIFICATE
This
is to certify that the Research Paper titled Powerless Watchdogs: A Study on
Diminished Powers of Indian Media Regulatory Bodiesis a record of the bonafede
work done by Shivam Vashisht(221305014)
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
BBALLB(Hons.) in School of Law of
Manipal University Jaipur, during
the academic year 2022-23.
Assistant
Professor Shruti Bitoliya
Project
Guide, Dept. of Law
Manipal
University Jaipur
Dr.
Sony Kulshrestha
HOD,
Dept. of Law
Manipal
University Jaipur
DECLARATION
I
Shivam Vashisht hereby declare that the dissertation, titled ‘Powerless Watchdogs: A Study on Diminished Powers of
Indian Media Regulatory Bodies’ is a record of
original research work undertaken by me. I have completed this study under the
supervision of Assistant Professor
Shruti Bitoliya, School of Law. It has not been
sent for any publication or presentation purpose. I hereby confirm that this
work is original without any plagiarism.
Place: Jaipur, Rajasthan
Date:
30/10/2023
Shivam
Vashisht Reg No.221305014
Manipal
University Jaipur, Rajasthan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I
would like to express my profound gratitude to the Faculty of School of Law for
their contributions to the completion of my project titled “Powerless
Watchdogs: A Study on Diminished Powers of Indian Media Regulatory Bodies”.
I
would like to express my special thanks to our mentor Assistant Professor
Shruti Bitoliyafor her valuable time and efforts, she provided throughout the
year. Your guidance and suggestions made this project successful.Youruseful
advice and suggestions were helpful to me during the project’s completion. I
will always be appreciative of you.
Author: Shivam Vashisht
(Reg. No.: 221305014)
(Program: BBA LLB (Hons.))
Co-Author: Assistant Professor Shruti Bitoliya
(Manipal University, Faculty of Law)
Abstract
Issues
surrounding media regulation have been repeatedly debated in India for years.
Despite the continuous evolution of the Press Council of India and other
regulatory groups, their authority and arbitrary actions are upraised in
different ways again and again. The main point that is the root cause to
continuous tension among many is that the current self-regulatory mechanism is
too feeble to address the issues regarding common topics like defamation, news moulding by way of payment, misreporting
due to many factors like political influence, and sensationalized or
exaggerated reports.
Media
regulatory bodies in India, such as the Indian Press Council, CBFC, NBDSA, and
the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, have faced persistent criticism
for their perceived lack of real power and independence. They struggle to
effectively punish and standardize media actions, raising doubts about their
authority. The Information Technology Rules 2021 further exacerbate the issue
by curbing media independence and free speech, limiting the autonomy of
journalists and digital media publishers.
To
enhance Indian media regulation, in this research we will also study countries
with strong frameworks like the UK and Germany for insights on improving
independence and effectiveness.
To
address these issues, we will use Doctrinal
Methodology to conduct our research in this paper.
INDEX
S.No.
Content
Pg. No.
1. Certificate
2
2. Declaration
3
3. Acknowledgement
4
4. Abstract
5
5. Introduction
7
6. Diminished
Powers of India Media Regulatory Bodies 9
7. A
Comparative Analysis (An International Viewpoint) 14
8. Suggestions 16
9. Conclusion
17
Introduction
The
origin and development of media in India goes deep in past where there were
various means to transfer or send information. There were handwritten manuscripts,
letters, documents, and information in the form of storylinesetc. in early
Indian civilization. However, with the introduction of print and journalism,
the more contemporary notion of media as we know it now started to take shape.
History
and Context of study:-
With
little overlap, the Judiciary, which enforces the law, the Legislative which
frames it and the Executive, which implements it, have each carried out their
distinct functions successfully. However, the media now being referred to
as the Fourth Pillar of democracy—has united the three branches of government
and served as a watchdog to maintain accountability, the execution of each
branch's constitutional mandate, the flexible theory of the separation of
powers, and the strict application of the law.
The
Media in India has been developed broadly in three segments over different
historical phases:-
The
first one being the Print Media was originated and developed when James
Augustus Hickey, who launched "The Bengal Gazette," India's first
newspaper, in 1780, is frequently credited with bringing print media to the country.
In the 19th century, the Indian freedom movement, and the demand for educated
public opinion led to a nationwide explosion of newspapers and journals. During
this time, prestigious newspapers like "The Hindu" and "The
Times of India" started to appear.
The
second one being the Broadcast Media came into being when the All India Radio
(AIR) was founded in 1936, however radio transmission in India dates back to
the 1920s. In the early 1950s, television made its debut in India through Door
darshan, the state-run broadcaster that remained the only channel for many
years. However, the 1990s saw the advent of cable and satellite television,
which significantly altered the media environment.
The
third one being the Digital and New Media started developing when India
witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of digital media with the development
of the internet and related technologies. Online news portals, social media
platforms, and news websites all resulted from this evolution. Given that India
has one of the highest internet user populations worldwide, digital media has
significant influence over public opinion.
Need
of Media Regulating Bodies
The
very origin of the media led to the need of media regulating bodies, the on and
on development of various media organizations all over India or I should say
world made these regulating bodies a global demand. As for India from the very
establishment of democracy there was an upsurging trend of criticism and along
to path to present this criticism became more and more unmanageable or unruly
leading to origin of various problems like
defamation, (slander/libel), hampering the image of our own government
and Indian judiciary and many more. Thus, allowing the need to develop and
establish media regulating bodies also giving rise to a dilemma that whether
these bodies should be centre regulated, state regulated or self-regulated.
Purpose
and Problem of Research:-
After
the phase of establishment of these Regulating bodies a new problem and a major
one started uprising that all the media regulating bodies were criticized to be
the toothless tigers
The
Indian Press Council, being established
in 1978 under the Press Council Act, despite the fact of having a
continuous supervision over media actions and ethics defining its standards the
counsel has failed to take any real actions or have some real powers to punish.
The CBFC is another example of failing in regulating the cinema studious due to
various allegations of taking arbitrary censorship decisions is also coming
under the spotlight of criticism. The NBDSA, which was established to uphold
broadcasting standards and norms, is confronted with issues regarding, among
other things, its independence. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
which is crucial to supervising media regulation, has also been charged with
abusing its political power.
Even
the bare minimum powers i.e., medium-specific regulations of punishing and
standardizing are being lacked turning the whole authority of media regulation
under question.
The
recently developed Information Technology Rules 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) for
regulating the Digital Media content have given birth to a new problem of
continuous diminishing the independency and free speech of Media thus, limiting
the independency of journalists, bloggers, and other digital media publishers.
Scope
of the Study
The
scope of this study is limited to only issues being raised among print and
electronic media. And the research will be conducted only in the context of
India only although, the reference will be taken from other countries if
required.
Significance
and Solution
To
improve the climate for media regulation in India, this research suggests
comparing India with countries that have strong media regulatory frameworks. By
looking at best practises from countries with stringent media regulation, like
the United Kingdom and Germany, it may be able to improve the independence,
effectiveness, and adaptability of Indian media regulating authorities.
Diminished
Powers of India Media Regulatory Bodies
How
Indian Media Regulating bodies came into being ?
As
in India each media body has its own regulating body, this very concept came
after different incidents along with time till present:-
·
The Press Council of
India (PCI)being an independent statutory body
was created in year 1978 by Press
council act of India for regulating the print media like newspapers
various journals etc The Body is considered the most important body for the
preservation of democracy and the safeguarding of freedom of expression. It
provides arbitration for cases brought
by or on behalf of the media for violations of press freedom and journalistic
ethics.
·
The Cinematograph Act
created the Censor Board for Film Certification (CBFC) to approve films. In
2021, the government abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal under
the Cinematograph Act. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)
manages films and related activities.
·
MIB's Broadcasting Wing
regulates broadcasting, cable TV, and FM Radio. The Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act 1995 and the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 oversee
cable TV operations, including registration, content codes, and channel
pricing. In June 2021, the MIB proposed Cable Television Networks (Amendment)
Rules 2021, which include a three-tier redressal system involving
self-regulation, self-regulating bodies, and central government oversight,
currently facing legal challenges in the Supreme Court.
·
Digital media,
including online news, OTT platforms, and social media, are regulated under the
IT Act and Intermediaries Guidelines. These guidelines require intermediaries
to display user policies, warn against illegal content, and have a complaint
redressal mechanism. The code of ethics for news and content publishers is also
being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Problems
faced by Media Regulation Bodies
It
is believed that India where media is growing and evolving at a very fast rate,
making significant change in different sectors and along the path also giving
rise to different issues regarding use of powers irregular or for own motive,
thus bring different regulating bodies of media in spotlight time to time for
matters having political, socialor economic interest.
Some
major problems being in hot topic for respective regulation bodies are as
follows:-
1. A
major problem being in news regarding Press Council of India (PCI) was that it
can address problems regarding breach of guidelines being laid in Indian Press
Council Act 1978, but it does not have any real power to directly penalize any
article, blog, headline in different
newspapers, different agencies (of news, journals, magazines etc.), or editors
and publishers of different publications.
Supreme
Court in the year 2021 gave the verdict and held that journalists will not be
subjects to criminal prosecution and can’t be penalized for the same reason
which clearly shows dissatisfaction of the public with the policies of the
government and was criticized majorly by public showing eradication of trust of
public in media regulating bodies.
2. In
India only CBFC has the task of certifying all types of movies, documentaries,
their trailers, advertising being broadcasted in cinema, and other short films
all for public viewing. And for similar purpose they have created 4 criteria
according to age group:-
U - Unrestricted
UA - With parent’s guidance children under age
of 12 years if not then unrestricted
A - Only for Adults
S - Made keeping in mind a special class of
people.
So
recently a famous movie Oppenheimer was being realized and just few days before
its realizing in cinemas its category on discretion of CBFC was changed from A to UA and similar
instance was reported by IGN India. There was huge hue and cry and debates
relating to same case and CBFC was criticized by many people and agencies for
the same reason but overall, the matter didn’t get much relevance.
3. Another
recent case was found to be bound with discretion of MIB in India where it
blocked eight channels of YouTube stating that the channels were spreading
content inciting and leading to hampering of national security, foreign
relations and public order stating it to be a part of an implication of
emergency power this happened on August 16, 2022 now this whole case was a part
of self-regulation and does not contain any strong grounds to be done, although
it was done due to the violation of Article 19(2) but it was found that the use
of new IT rules 2022 was done in an arbitrary and discrete manner.
4. Most
recently in 2023 on 18th September the NBDA and NBF has a rivalry on
which Supreme Court gave its verdict that no such rivalry is the part of S.C.’s
supervision and S.C. does not want to be caught up in same suggesting a
self-regulating mechanism for T.V. channels again showing a movement towards self-discretion
and arbitrary use of powers.
5. If
we talk about new IT rules 2021 the most debatable topic about that is instead
of creating a whole act government decided to create rules showing
implementation of self-regulation and use of discretion. So, because of no
actual or even bare minimum control by government various platforms like Live
Law, mint , SCC and other sites criticised and challenged these rules.
Also,
at that time WhatsApp also filed a case in Delhi High Court against IT
guidelines challenging them on the ground that these guidelines will directly
hampers the policy of end-to-end description, as right to privacy of citizens
is being endangered directly thus violating basic FR.
6. Due
to the inconsistent media regulatory framework and the fact that several
organisations in charge of media oversight frequently perform similar tasks,
which breeds confusion. Therefore, the disorganised regulatory structure is
also causing issues for the media.
7. Deepak
Maini v Star Plus69 (2009) was a case where the Supreme Court laid down a
verdict that theirMinistry of Information and Broadcastingis enough for judging
that whether the content to be broadcasted on T.V. or other platforms is
appropriate or not and does it fulfil all criteria or not, and there is no need
for court and judiciary to interfere in the same matter. So, this clearly shows
that MIB is getting in a position where
they can freely act in a biased way on their own discretion to take respective
decision.
The
media has several difficulties in the area of regulations, including problems
with regulatory power, organisational structures, and restrictions imposed on
regulators. Perplexity frequently results from the intertwining of numerous
regulatory organisations' domains. Problems arise not just in the larger
framework of print and electronic media regulation, but also inside individual
media platforms. These conundrums highlight the necessity of advocating for new
regulatory frameworks or changing current legislation pertaining to the media.
Need
for Effective self-regulation of Media:-
In
a recent move, the Supreme Court (SC) emphasised how crucial it is to uphold
the self-regulation policies put in place by television networks in order to
guarantee moral conduct and responsible journalism.
The
News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) filed an appeal against the
Bombay High Court's findings that self-regulation is ineffective, and the SC
acted in response. The Bombay High Court had stated that it was against media
trials and that the existing structures for self-regulation did not have the
characteristics of legislative systems.
The
S.C.:-
After
the verdict of the present case the court send a notice to NBDA and other
relevant media regulating bodies regarding guidelines and need to improvise
media regulating framework in a way so that the goal for examining the media
work can become more effective and efficient.
The
S.C. concluded:-
·
The Supreme Court has
demonstrated that it is committed to maintaining media ethics and responsible
journalism while protecting the values of free expression, as seen by its
recent review of sanctions for dishonest behaviour inside television networks.
·
The Court's
determination to work with regulatory bodies and impose stricter penalties
demonstrates how proactive it is in finding a fair and balanced solution
between media freedom and moral responsibility.
SC
Demands Tighter Regulations for TV News Channels
The
SC recently asked NBDA and NBF to suggest a mechanism for better and unbiased
self-regulation of media organizations and agencies, this all started with a
petition filed by NBDA challenging the decision given by Bombay High Court that
self-regulatory mechanism used by various regulating channels, news channels,
other television broadcasting and associates will not get the legal
recognition.
Problems
with TV news channels' current self-regulation:
·
The Supreme Court
acknowledges that protecting free expression is essential, as stated in the
Constitution's Article 19(1)(a). It is difficult to strike a balance between
this freedom and making sure that news reporting is held accountable.
·
Currently, TV news
networks rely on voluntary rules from broadcaster groups like the NBF and NBDA.
The NBSA and other regulatory agencies' penalties could not be seen as strong
enough to discourage unethical reporting, which might lead to channels seeing
fines as ordinary operating expenses.
·
Self-regulatory
organisations must register according to new government legislation, however
some organisations, like the NBSA, have refused to comply. Due to differences
in the business, the PNBSA is the only legally recognised self-regulatory body
for news stations.
·
Concerns over
disproportionate control have been raised by fears that self-regulatory
organisations, such as the NBDA, may be perceived as monopolising the news
broadcaster complaint resolution process in the absence of adequate
governmental or legal monitoring.
A
Comparative Analysis (An International Viewpoint)
The
United Kingdom's Media Regulation
·
The United Kingdom has
a long history of regulating the media by combining the traditions of
self-regulation with legislative requirements. There has been a shift towards
co-regulation, with Ofcom supervising television and IPSO controlling print
media. This growth makes it possible to adjust to the digital era.
·
By effectively
extending their reach into the digital sphere, UK regulatory organisations like
Ofcom and IPSO have been able to keep control over online material. Flexibility
and regulatory stability have been made possible by co-regulation and robust
industry participation.
·
In the UK, regulatory
agencies are still able to successfully exercise their influence by tackling
issues such as disinformation and maintaining a balance between responsible
media and freedom of speech. Continuous adjustment to the ever-changing digital
environment is still crucial.
US Media
Regulation
·
Based on the First
Amendment, the United States takes a unique stance. While the FTC manages
advertising, the FCC is in charge of broadcast media. Regulatory agencies
foster a culture of self-regulation by operating with little interference from
the government.
·
Although digital media
presents problems for the US, broadcasting is still governed by organisations
like the FCC, and privacy issues are handled under current frameworks. Media
freedom has been maintained by the self-regulatory environment's continued
relative stability.
·
Because US media
regulatory agencies still have the authority to regulate media in the country,
material may be managed responsibly. There is continued equilibrium between
ethical journalism and media freedom. Sustaining regulatory efficacy will need
ongoing adaptation to the digital environment.
Media
Regulation in India
·
India's media
regulation landscape faces challenges in adapting to the digital era. The Press
Council of India and NBA provide guidelines for traditional media, but their
effectiveness in regulating online content is limited.
·
India's media regulatory
bodies have significantly diminished powers when it comes to regulating online
content. The absence of comprehensive regulatory mechanisms has led to issues
of misinformation, privacy breaches, and content moderation.
·
India grapples with
diminished powers in media regulation, resulting in an influx of
misinformation, privacy breaches, and content moderation issues. Ensuring a
responsible and accountable media landscape is a challenging task,
necessitating comprehensive regulation to protect the public interest.
Social
Media Regulations
Germany
With
the main objective of reducing harm to internet users, the German Social Media
Regulation Act of 2017 was created to regulate social media platforms and went
into effect on October 1, 2017. The main goals of this Act are to protect
consumers from online content that may contain upsetting items like child
exploitation, violence, terrorism, and cyberbullying, as well as to hold social
media companies accountable.
This
rule requires businesses that have more than two million registered users in
Germany to comply, which puts a heavy burden on bigger social media
corporations to protect their customers' safety online.
Australia
On
April 6, 2019, the heinous violent material sharing act of 2019 went into force,
specifically aimed at social media networks. The unfortunate event the
live-streamed terrorist assault on Facebook resulted towards, the Australian
government amending the criminal law, requiring social media companies to take
down such violent information from their websites as soon as possible.
The
measure was also a reaction to the public uproar against cyberbullying and many
victims report for going into depression and suicide cases due to similar acts
by various online users.
Conclusion
A
comparative analysis of media regulation in the United Kingdom, the United
States, and India reveals distinctive approaches and outcomes. The UK and the
US successfully maintain regulatory influence while adapting to the digital
age, ensuring a balance between media freedom and ethical journalism. India, on
the other hand, faces significant challenges in regulating online content,
highlighting the pressing need for comprehensive regulatory solutions to
protect the public interest. These experiences collectively offer insights into
the complex interplay of media regulation and freedom of expression in the
digital era.
It
is clear from contrasting India's predicament with Germany's strict social
media laws that both countries have made tremendous efforts to shield their
citizens from dangerous internet information and cyberbullying. These actions
demonstrate not just a dedication to user safety but also these nations'
proactive approach to social media platform regulation in order to foster a
safer online environment.
SUGGESTIONS
·
First of all, there
should be a proper establishment of rules to segregate media regulating bodies
for each type of media and there should not be any confusion, where two bodies
can regulate same media also there should be proper separation of state and
self-regulation so that bodies of respective nature don’t collide with each
other’s decision while performing their functions.
·
The Press Council of India
act should be amended in a manner so that apart from having powers toimposing
certain restricting, disapproving and censure publications they can also in
accordanceto the (act done or omission) impose fines and even putting
injunction on the whole publication by cancelling their license or other
relevant measure.
·
There can also be
amendments made for not allowing parliamentary or other such members to
interfere in the decision of council to prevent political influence and stop
biasness and discretion for the same reason amendment can also be made to stop
immature or new journalist and editors to attend the meeting for better and
efficient decision.
·
For the above decision
the panel of Indian Council committee can set certain criteria for allowing
only well trained and experienced journalist, publishers, and editors to
qualify to be the part of the council and also to participate in respective
meetings or former journalist, publishers etc can also be selected.
·
Their can be certain
guidelines for including the supervision of judiciary on decisions taken by MIB
or other such broadcasting media regulating body so that personal discretion
can be avoided. Also, some rules and regulations with proper guidelines can be
laid down for making a better self-regulating mechanism with more
effective policies so that cases alike mentioned above do not arise or if arise
can be addressed properly.
·
Indian regulatory agencies ought to strengthen
their laws governing online material, taking cues from the US and the UK. This
entails developing extensive regulations suited to the difficulties presented
by digital media, such as disinformation, privacy violations, and content
moderation. For internet to make media, responsible and accountable, a stronger
framework is necessary.
·
Self-regulation can be
promoted in the media sector, emulating US and UK policies. Maintaining moral
principles and finding a balance between media freedom and accountability, need
cooperation between media organisations and regulatory agencies. Encouraging
media organisations to set up self-regulation frameworks can reduce government
intervention while guaranteeing ethical reporting.
·
Government can establish
an independent oversight body to control different facets of the media, similar
to the US Federal Communications Commission or the UK's Ofcom. This body need
to have the authority to handle matters pertaining to content, morality, and
the responsible behaviour of media companies. In order to guarantee
impartiality, independence from governmental influence is essential.
·
Establish a system for frequent updates and
modifications to handle new issues that arise in the online environment.
Regulators need to be flexible in their responses to new innovations and
technological advancements that impact media regulation.
·
CONCLUSION
In
conclusion, the perceived shortcomings of regulating agencies have resulted in
ongoing challenges and criticism of India's media regulation system. Many
people believe that the current self-regulatory systems fall short in tackling
problems including sensationalised reporting, paid journalism, political
interference, and defamation. This study has examined the difficulties and
complexities related to media regulation, providing insights into how this
subject is developing.
The
Press Council of India, the CBFC, the NBDSA, and the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting are among the Indian regulatory entities that have had
difficulty establishing their legitimacy and autonomy. There are questions
regarding these bodies' ability to penalise and regulate media activity. The
Information Technology Rules of 2021 have sparked more worries about free
expression and media independence.
This
research has identified important recommendations for strengthening media
regulation in India, taking inspiration from nations with strong regulatory
systems such as the United States and the United Kingdom. To increase the
efficacy of media regulation, it is imperative to strengthen laws governing
online content, encourage industry participation in self-regulation, create an
independent oversight body, and acknowledge the fluidity of the digital
landscape.
By
establishing a balance between media freedom and ethical journalism, these
countries—the US and the UK in particular—have been able to maintain regulatory
power while adjusting to the digital era. India, on the other hand, has a lot
of difficulties when it comes to regulating internet material, which highlights
the urgent need for all-encompassing regulatory solutions to safeguard the public
interest.
International
viewpoints have also been examined in the study, including Australia's response
to cyberbullying and online violence as well as Germany's strict social media
rules. These initiatives show a dedication to protecting citizens from
inappropriate content on the internet.
The
continuously evolving media ecosystem necessitates that Indian media regulatory
organisations change and adapt in light of these results. Adopting the
recommended actions may result in a media landscape that is more responsible
and accountable. In order to safeguard the public interest, India can endeavour
to achieve a balance between media freedom and ethical journalism through
collaboration, a more robust regulatory framework, and an awareness of the
constantly changing digital landscape. The present study establishes a basis
for the continuous discourse and endeavours to enhance media control inside the
nation.