“Big responsibility of TV anchors… why is the center silent…?” SC tough on hate speech, reprimands media
Taking a tough stand on hate speech, the Supreme Court has raised questions on the media. SC said, “Most hate speech is on media and social media, where is our country going? TV anchors have a big responsibility. TV anchors do not even give time to the guest, why is the center silent in such an environment? A strict regulator The system needs to be set up.” The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Central Government in this matter in two weeks. The matter will now come up for hearing on November 23.
While hearing the petitions filed regarding hate speech, Justice KM Joseph has made big comments. He said, “Political parties make capital out of it and TV channels are acting as a platform. Most of the hate speeches are happening on TV, social media. Unfortunately we don’t have any regulatory mechanism regarding TV. A TV channel in England was heavily fined. Unfortunately that system is not there in India. The anchors should be told that if you do wrong there will be consequences. The problem is when you hit a person during an event. This is what we get when you turn on the TV. We get attached to it. Everyone belongs to this republic. It’s the politicians who are taking advantage. The pillars of democracy are supposed to be free. Not everyone should be a victim.”
He said that you call the guests and criticize them. We are not against any particular anchor but against the general trend, there should be a system. Check out Panel Discussion and Debates, Interview. If the anchor has to take up a large chunk of the time, set some method. The questions are long, the person who answers is not given time. The guest hardly gets any time. Why is the center silent, why doesn’t it come forward? The state must survive as an institution. The Center should take the initiative. Establish a strict regulatory mechanism. Does not define ” If so, it does not have the power to register D. The Election Commission had thrown the ball in the Centre’s court. The Election Commission had said that in the absence of any specific law for spreading hate speech and rumours, the Election Commission would adopt various provisions of the IPC. Enacts such as Section 153A – Promoting enmity between communities and the Representation of the People Act. Also issuing advisories from time to time appealing to the parties to stay away from the practices. This is also a part of the election code of conduct.
The commission has said in its affidavit that there is no clear law regarding hate speech. And in the current era, the existing laws are not capable of taking appropriate action against those who spread hate speech or statements through hate speech. To prevent hate speech and rumors during elections, the commission works under the IPC and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to prevent people including political parties from disturbing harmony. But there is no specific and prescribed law to stop hate speech and rumours. The Supreme Court should give an appropriate order in this matter because, in the 267th report submitted by the Law Commission last year i.e. in March of 2017, it has also suggested that necessary amendments should be made in the criminal law regarding hate speech. Earlier in July, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Central Government and the Election Commission in the hate speech case. The court asked both to respond within three weeks. BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed a petition regarding hate speech, requesting the court to issue a direction to immediately implement the report of the Law Commission on the alleged hate speech. There has been a demand to implement the 267th report of the Law Commission on Hate Speech. In fact, in the year 2017, the Law Commission had defined hate and inflammatory speech. On the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) had suggested the addition of sections 153C and 505A.
