Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Bccc in Viacom 18 Media Private Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India on 24 November, 2014Matching Fragments
10. Though the appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice supra inter alia to the effect that it will in future comply with the programme code and all the conditions of uplinking / downlinking permission but no representative of the appellant attended the personal hearing granted before the Inter-Ministerial Council (IMC) constituted to look into the cases of violation of programme code; yet another opportunity of hearing was granted in the meeting of the IMC scheduled on 19 th December, 2012. The appellant submitted another representation apologizing for the telecast of the programme aforesaid and describing the episode as unintentional and assured that they had stopped repeat telecast of the programme and will also not air other programmes having similar content and requested the respondent to take a lenient view. It was further stated that most of the contents of the channel are conceived, created and produced out of India and that they had also submitted an apology to the Broadcasting Content Complaint Council (BCCC), a self regulatory body of the television broadcasters.
16. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding / observing / holding:-
(i) that consultation with BCCC is not a requirement laid down in the Act; as per Clause 10.2 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India dated 5 th December, 2011, BCCC needs to be consulted only for the purpose of determining whether the contents of any particular telecast constitute a violation of the Policy Guidelines or not and not while deciding the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the offending channel;
(ii) that even otherwise the failure of the respondent to consult BCCC would not vitiate the decision taken, considering that on a reference by the appellant itself and after giving an opportunity of hearing to it, the BCCC also was of the view that the contents of the programme 'Stand Up Club' telecast on 25th May, 2012 were objectionable; it was not the plea of the appellant also that the contents of the programme were not objectionable; the only plea of the appellant was that a genuine mistake took place in telecasting the unedited version of the programme;
(iii) that this Court in Star India Private Limited Vs. Union of India 185 (2011) DLT 519 also has held that absence of consultation with BCCC would not by itself render the action illegal;
(iv) that it could also not be said that BCCC had not recommended any action, as its opinion on the said aspect was not sought by anybody;
(v) that in the facts of the present case the appellant itself had admitted that the contents of the programme were in violation of the programme code;