Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. There has recently been a conscious move by the media, as part of a self-regulatory exercise, to address this problem. The Indian Broadcasting Federation („IBF‟) has set up a Broadcasting Content Complaints Council („BCCC‟) which is a thirteen-member body at present chaired by a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. It has twelve other members of which four are eminent persons, four are members of national level statutory commissions and four Broadcast members. The complaint against a television programme telecast by a broadcast service provider („BSP‟), who is a member of the IBF, is referred first to the BCCC which hears the parties before ordering measures wherever warranted. The BCCC examines if the programme complained against violates the „Self Regulatory Content Guidelines for non-news and current affairs television channels‟ („SRGC‟). The directive issued by the BCCC is binding on the members of the IBF. In exceptional cases, where a BSP does not carry out the BCCC‟s directives, the BCCC may recommend the case to the I&B Ministry for appropriate action against the BSP, as per law. It is not in dispute that the impugned warning was issued to the SPC prior to the constitution of the BCCC. However, subsequent to the constitution of the BCCC, the I&B Ministry has itself been referring the complaints made to it to the BCCC. This is a tacit acknowledgement by the I&B Ministry that the complaints received by it about objectionable content of television programmes require to be examined by a broad-based expert body.

21. In the present case, after arguments were finally heard on 11th August 2011, the case was again listed on 12th September 2011 to ascertain if the I&B Ministry would be agreeable to have the matter referred to the BCCC and thereafter take a final decision after considering the views of the BCCC. Ms. Sidhu learned counsel for the Respondents informed the Court at the hearing on 19th September 2011 that since a decision had already been taken by them, the I & B Ministry was not willing to have the BCCC examine the matter. Orders were then reserved by this Court.

25. For television programmes, for the first time in India, the IBF has come up with the SRGC which talks of two broad categories of television programmes "according to theme, subject matter treatment and audio visual depiction" as „Generally Accessible‟ (G) and „Restricted Access‟ (R). Category G programmes "are suitable for unrestricted viewing by all viewers and/or under Parental Guidance". Category R is for "restricted programmes that are not meant for children and young viewers." Category G programmes can be broadcast "at all times" whereas Category R programmes can be scheduled for being telecast only between 11 pm and 5 am. The SRGC is eponymously self regulatory and the BSP is expected to follow the norms concerning categorization of a programme as „G‟ or „R. Thus the BSP is expected to be sensitive to what is acceptable from the point of view of Indian ethos and culture. As at present, in terms of the SRGC, a complaint concerning the content of a programme can be made to the BCCC. The BCCC then reviews the particular programme complained against and determines, inter alia, in light of the SRGC, if it is sustainable and if so whether any corrective is called for. Further, in applying an objective standard, the BCCC or any such expert body cold seek guidance from the large body of judicial decisions, some of which have been referred to by learned senior counsel for the Petitioner. The BCCC‟s decision is binding on the BSP, but where the BSP does not comply with its directive, the BCCC can write to the I&B Ministry for corrective action.

The distinction between two sets of violations of the Programme Code

26. As earlier observed, the determination by the Respondent that the two episodes of SKS violate Rules 6 (1) (a), (d) (i) and (o) of the CTN Rules is based on the opinion of the IMC and not a broad-based body like the BCCC. Yet, for reasons set out hereafter, for the purposes of the present case, it may not be necessary for this Court to determine whether the two episodes of SKS violate Rules 6 (1) (a), (d) and (i) CTN Rules if, independent of those provisions, the overall theme of SKS is found to be such that it requires to be categorized as „unsuitable for unrestricted public exhibition‟ in terms of Rule 6 (1) (o). In such event, the conscious act of the SIPL to slot the programme for telecast at a prime time would call for corrective action. In other words, for the purposes of the present case, it is possible to draw a distinction between the alleged violation of Rules 6 (1) (a), (d) and (i) on the one hand and the violation of Rule 6 (1)