On Friday, January 13, the Supreme Court came down heavily on media outlets for sensationalising news in order to increase their television ratings (TRPs). Expressing concern over the media trial in the recent incident where a man allegedly urinated on an Air India flight, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said, “He was called names. He was denigrated. Everyone has the right to dignity.”
Justice Joseph said TV channels are competing with each other as news coverage is TRP-driven.
The remark came while the bench was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a curb on hate speech incidents across the country and action against the culprits.
Media driven by TRP ratings: SC
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, hearing the pleas filed in relation to hate speech incidents, stated that hate speech is a “complete menace” and bemoaned the lack of regulatory oversight over TV news coverage, noting that it desires a “free and balanced press in India.”
The Supreme Court further argued that everything nowadays is driven by Television Rating Point (TRP) and that channels are competing with one another and “dividing society.” It also questioned why a TV news anchor cannot be taken off air if they contribute to the problem of spreading hate speech.
“We want free speech, but at what cost,” the court said noting that, unlike print media, there is no Press Council of India for news channels.
Justice Nagarathna stated that often times during live discussions, anchors become part of the problem by either muting the voice of a panelist or not allowing them to make a counter-point.
If TV channels are proven to be violating the program code by promoting hate speech, action can be taken against their management, he said.
Action has been taken against several media channels: News Broadcasters Association
The News Broadcasters Association’s counsel indicated that thousands of complaints were received in the previous year and that action was taken against the networks.
“In a live program, the key to the fairness of the program is held by the anchor. If the anchor is not fair, he would not allow the counter view to come by either muting the speaker or by not asking the question to the other side. This is an insignia of bias. How many times action has been taken against the anchor? Media people must learn that they are occupying positions of great strength and they have an impact on society. They cannot be part of the problem and speak their mind whichever way they want,” the bench said.
According to Justice Joseph, if action is taken against the news anchor or their management, everything would fall into place.
The court reminded Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who was representing the Centre, that freedom of expression is a very vital and delicate subject, and that the government must take some action without actually interfering with it.
Center committed to dealing with hate speech issues
General KM Nataraj stated that the Centre is aware of the problem and is considering amending the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to address the issue of hate speech.
The bench informed him that the government must take action against broadcasts that have an impact on the nation and undermine fraternity and unity while remaining within the bounds of the law and employing some out-of-the-box thinking.
Justice Nagarathna said, “TV has been now in India for decades but still it has no regulations and has become free for all. You don’t have something like the Press Council of India for channels like newspapers.”
SC directs 3 state govts to take suo moto action against hate speeches irrespective of religion
It may be recalled that on 21st October 2022, the Supreme Court instructed the law enforcement agencies of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh governments to take suo moto action in cases regarding hate speech without waiting for complaints to be filed.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy also directed the Governments of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to file a report before the Court regarding the actions taken on the hate speech crimes that took place in these states.
