Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. In all fairness to Shri Rahul Mehra, the learned counsel who appeared pro-bono for the petitioner after the petition had been filed, did not argue for grant of relief as per prayers made. Very fairly conceding that a broad issue of great public importance was emerging for consideration, the learned counsel submitted that he would be making submissions on two distinct facets. Firstly a regulatory mechanism to enforce the provisions of 'The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995' be devised. Secondly action to be taken against respondent No.3 for being found to be violating the 'Programme Code' i.e. Rule 6 of the 'The Cable Television Network Rules 1994'. And for the curious reader who may find it a little odd that the Rules are of 1994 but the Act is of 1995, we would like to inform that the Act, as per sub-Section 3 of Section 1 thereof, shall be deemed to have come into force on September 29, 1994, on which date the Rules of 1994 were promulgated as per power conferred by sub-Section 1 of Section 22 of 'The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Ordinance 1994'. The first violation is the one detected by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of being offensive to the sensibilities of children, directing the timing to be shifted to 11:00 PM, reference whereof is to be found in a show cause notice dated February 22, 2011 (Annexure R-5) when another violation (second) in the form of allegedly indecent, obscene and vulgar language used - offending good taste and decency, was alleged and therein a reference was made to a violation in the past. The show cause notice would evidence that the offending programme was not one but five in number broadcast on November 20, 2010, November 27, 2010, December 04, 2010, December 11, 2010 and December 18, 2010. Four letter words were used in the broadcast. So it is alleged in the show cause notice. The third set of violation was as found in Annexure R-1/6 pertaining to programmes broadcast on July 16, 2011 and July 23, 2011. Learned counsel pointed out another violation found by a self regulatory body constituted by the broadcasters called 'Broadcast Content Complaint Council' (BCCC) which also found a violation during the pendency of the instant writ petition.

(vii) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (viii) Representative from the 'Advertising Standards Council of India (A Self Regulatory Body of the Advertising Industry)'; and (ix) Joint Secretary (Broadcasting).

19. And we simply highlight that we fail to understand as to what would the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Defence be doing?

20. In the year 2008 the Government of India had prepared a draft of 'Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector - 2008', proposing a two-tier self regulatory mechanism. Firstly a self-regulatory system where a broadcaster would nominate an individual charged with the duty to comply with the law, to whom a complaint could be addressed. At the second tier was, if we may use the expression, an Appellate Forum at the industry level being 'Broadcasting Consumers Complaint Committee' (BCCC) consisting of professional experts representing all stake holders such as industry, consumer, civil society and organizations of eminence in social sciences. As per the Union of India concerns were expressed by various sections in the media. A wide ranging consultative process was put into motion with all stake holders, but a consensus eluded. Conceding that the regulations of 2008 have no statutory force, as per Union of India and respondent No.3 the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, a body of broadcasters has set up BCCC which is functioning from July 01, 2011. The Committee consists of:-

30. The grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of a third violation being found as per minutes of the meeting dated August 08, 2011, Annexure R-1/6, no order was passed because instant writ petition was pending. Learned counsel would urge that even the BCCC i.e. the Self Regulatory Body found two programmes dated June 25, 2011 and July 02, 2011 to be having objectionable content, but passed no directions since instant writ petition was pending.

73. We do not comment upon the merits of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 which we have noted in paragraph 16 and 32 above pertaining to the alleged 3rd and the 4th violation, as per Annexure R-1/6 and the one allegedly found by BCCC for the reason a final decision was not taken by either the executive or BCCC on account of the reason both felt that the instant writ petition being pending in this Court they should not proceed to pass final directions. We therefore direct the Union of India and BCCC to pass final directions with respect to the said two alleged violations; Union of India would take the decision with respect to the first of the two violations and BCCC shall pass an order with respect to its opinion, which order would be taken to its logical conclusion by the Union of India.