Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking central government’s right to regulate media
The Supreme Court recently underlined the importance of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while dismissing a PIL. The petition sought a direction to the Government of India to set up a “Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India” to regulate the media. The petition, filed in 2020 by Reepak Kansal in the backdrop of the coverage of the Sushant Singh Rajput case, sought various directions “to restrain the killing of the dignity of a person by broadcasting channels in the name of freedom of the press”. The petitioner also sought a direction to restrain the media trial from interfering with the administration of justice. Another relief sought in the petition was “a direction to stop the misuse of airwaves by these broadcast electronic channels in the name of media, press and journalism”.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oak and Justice Sanjay Karol said that the prayers sought in the petition are “very broad”. “First of all, we must note here that the prayers are very broad. Secondly, we have to keep in mind the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,” the bench said in the order passed. The bench further noted that the affidavits filed by the News Broadcasters Association and the News Broadcasters Standards Authority have revealed that a committee is in existence to deal with complaints relating to media broadcasting. The committee is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and has members from civil society.
“Moreover this Court is dealing with hate speech/news in separate petitions”, the Court said while declining to interfere under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file representations before the appropriate authorities to express his grievances. Along with Kansal’s petition, the court also considered another PIL filed by filmmaker Nilesh Navlakha, seeking constitution of an independent “media tribunal”. The said petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court. Navalkaha was represented by Advocate Shashwat Anand and Advocate Rajesh Inamdar.
