Regulatory Body for Media

By Akshay More

Freedom of the press is the mortar that binds together the bricks of democracy -- and it is also the open window embedded in those bricks. - Dr. Shashi Tharoor

-       

Issue: Is there a need for a regulatory body for the media?

While hearing a clutch of public interest litigations demanding a regulatory body for the media citing the failure of the government to regulate the content of broadcasts, the Supreme Court said that neither the judiciary nor the executive could carry out such supervision.

Cons of Setting up a Regulatory Body:

* The ruling is particularly important because the idea of objectionable content is itself arbitrary. It is often used to muzzle opinion inconvenient to the ruling dispensation. Indians love to censor.

* India ranks 133 among 180 countries in the latest press freedom index, and is considered to be one of the 13 most dangerous countries in the world for journalists.

* The media in India do not require more regulation, given the covert ways in which the State already exerts control over them. The withdrawal of government advertisements - on which newspapers and, increasingly, television news are greatly dependent - often forces the media to toe the line.

Way Ahead:

Regulatory bodies, such as the broadcasting content complaints council or the press council, already exist. The government should have no role to play if these institutions are doing their jobs.

At a time the media are being told not to cross certain boundaries, it is reassuring that the Supreme Court has, once again, underscored the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the press under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.