The Supreme Court Friday favoured action against television anchors who act unfairly during debates and sought to know how many times an anchor has been taken off air over a programme. The two-judge bench comprised Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna.
“How many times have you taken off anchors? Have you dealt with anchors in the way you send a message?” questioned Justice Joseph. His query was directed to advocate Nisha Bhambani, who appearing for the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), maintained that the board had taken quick and effective action whenever it receives a complaint regarding a programme aired by any of its members.
On the other hand, additional solicitor general K.M. Nataraj appearing for the government, told the bench that there are sufficient check and balances in place. However, in a bid to reinforce reality, Justice Joseph responded that “checks and balances are certainly not being advised in a manner which produces result.”
He argued that anchors sometimes shut down people from expressing their views. “Many of these TV programmes don’t allow people to talk on an equal basis. Participants you don’t want to express their views, you will either mute them, or allow the other person to go on the whole time unchallenged.”
Elaborating further, Justice Joseph stressed on the need for fair anchors and to “take off air an erring anchor.”
As he stated: “In a live debate, the fairness of the programme is ultimately with the anchor. Everything is driven by TRP and can be traced to Adi Sankaracharya’s point udaranimitham, bahukritha vesham (many things are done for the stomach).”
However, bringing to book the NBSA for its lapse in checking “offensive anchors,” Justice Joseph cautioned about “divisions being created in society by biased reporting and anchoring.”
He harped on the right to freedom of speech being used by “agenda-driven” channels to shape popular opinion. Lashing out at the NBSA’s free rein to vicious anchors, he reiterated: “The problem with freedom (of speech) is that it depends on the maturity of the audience. If the freedom is exercised with an agenda, then you are not serving the people. You are serving some other cause of somebody else. Then you have to be dealt with.”
Referring to the incident of the man accused of urinating on a fellow passenger during a flight, Justice Joseph noted: “That man is still an undertrial. Look at the kind of words being used for him. Please ensure that when you use words, you don’t denigrate anyone. Human dignity is part of Article 21.”
Calling on media to exercise right to freedom of speech with responsibility and fairness, the two-judge bench upheld “protecting free speech by acting in a proper manner.”
Responding to the government’s plan on regulating hate speech on TV, Nataraj apprised that it is working on changes to the criminal law.
Also Read: Joshimath Subsidence: Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing
