This article has been written by Ms. Indrakshi Chaku, an upcoming law student

Introduction

A free and fair media lies at the heart of a functional democracy. Indian constitution provides media with various rights that ensure its freedom and protect its ability to address questions of public importance. Being the fourth pillar of democracy, it is responsible for maintaining a strong system of checks and balances, uphold the truth and prevent the abuse of power. However, contemporary media, on numerous occasions, has violated this responsibility and stimulated the other organs of democracy, primarily judiciary and legislature to intervene and regulate the scope of freedom available to media. This phenomenon can particularly be witnessed in media trials. The conduct of media during trials has a huge influence on the verdict of the case and the reputation of the accused. Therefore, it becomes imperative to regulate the conduct of media through necessary regulations. 

Need for regulating media industry 

Regulating media ensures that the information presented by it does not disrupt the working mechanism of a nation, and protects the ethical and moral codes of the profession of journalism. Media plays a vital role in spreading information. The lack of a regulatory body has resulted in the deterrence of ethics in media, killing the very value of the profession of journalism. Reporting of false or incomplete information by the press has compromised the national security and integrity, for instance, the story of “Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav” circulated by the Quint, that was later taken down on the question of credibility, was circulated by The Quint and as a result shown in the International Court of Justice by Pakistan’s Attorney General as gospel of truth, which hinged the decision in the favour of Pakistan, making the return of Mr. Jadav difficult. It is also imperative to notice that regulation and control of media are not the same thing. As explained by UNESCO “media regulation started its development hand in hand with guaranteeing, promoting, and protecting freedom of expression. Therefore, the ultimate goal for regulating media should be to protect and deepen this fundamental right”. Presently, media is self-regulated in India. Two important bodies regulating it are the Press council of India and the News broadcasting Standard Authority. The benefits of self-regulation are well rehearsed.  Self-regulation preserves independence of the media and protects it from partisan government interference. It could be more efficient as a system of regulation as the media understand their own environment better than the government. As the media environment becomes global (through the development of the internet and digital platforms) and questions of jurisdiction become more complex, self-regulation can fill the resulting gap. It is less costly for government because industry bears the cost and can be more flexible than the government regulations. Self-regulation may also encourage greater compliance because of peer pressure. Self-regulation can also drive-up professional standards by requiring organisations to think about and even develop their own standards of behaviour. However, this mode of regulation also possesses considerable drawbacks. The knowledge of their own environment could easily encourage media to use the same to further their own financial, political or social motives. There is considerable evidence that regulation or the threat of regulation is more likely to secure compliance by the media in case of ethical or legal violations. Additionally, the lack of “power to penalize” of the self-regulatory media bodies leaves a huge gap for perpetrators to violate the responsibilities vested in the profession. Such disadvantages, which weight out the advantages of self-regulation, bring us to an imminent need to have state enforced regulatory mechanisms for the media

How can we achieve this

• Licensing regime: As put by Hon’ble J. M. Katju licensing the practice of journalism just like the profession of law, medicine, and teaching will systematically restructure the media industry and also endow the power to penalize the perpetrators upon the present regulatory bodies. Critics argue against this regime as it is believed to curtail the right to freedom of speech and expression constitutionally guaranteed to media under article 19 (1). In Harijai Singh & Anr vs In Re: Vijay Kumar ,17 September, 1996 the apex court held that the freedom of Speech and expression guaranteed to media is not absolute, but is limited by reasonable restrictions as to avoid a state of disorder and anarchy. Due to the polarity of views on licensing regime in journalism, it still remains a heated debate in India.
• Authoritative power: The present regulatory bodies (The Press Council of India and News Broadcasting Standard Authority) lack the authoritative power to take action against the violators of ethical code of conduct required to be followed by the media. In the recent judgement of Nilesh Navlakha and others v Union of India, the Bombay High Court directed the print and electronic media to exercise restraint and to refrain from publishing any news items, debates, discussions, interviews while reporting certain cases at a particular stage of investigation, especially during a pre-trial stage. However, it is worth noting that even though PCI issued a statement wherein it stated that the conduct of the media channels was in contravention of the norms of journalistic conduct, it still had no authority to take any action against such channels, thus rendering the journalistic guidelines merely statutory in nature and forcing the high court to intervene. This directly raises a question about the efficacy of such bodies, if the needed authority isn’t given to them
• Establishment of a uniform framework: Media industry in India is governed by a plethora of legislations and bodies. For instance: The Press and Registrations of Books Act 1867, The Press Council Act 1977, The Delivery of Books and Newspapers Act 1954, The Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees Act 1955, Advertising Laws under ASCI, etc. This leads to chaos and confusion. There is dire need to codify all these media laws into one. Codification refers to the process of rearranging existing laws and regulations into one unified code. This process does not necessarily create new law, it merely arranges existing laws, usually by subject, into a code. It helps to identify and eliminate inconsistent, duplicate and/or ambiguous laws creating a uniform source which is easily accessible to both professionals and public.

Conclusion

There is a very delicate balance between regulating media and controlling media. While the state intervention may be seen by some as an attempt to curb the freedom of speech and expression of the media, it is seen as necessary by others to ensure proper and truthful dissemination of information by the media. The self-regulatory mechanism of media presently followed in India offers significant advantages, but one must not overlook the inconsistencies within this mechanism. Such inconsistencies have been exploited by media at several occasions, threatening the national security, integrity and the fundamental rights of the citizens. Moreover, the lack of possesses ion of any authoritative power by PCI and NBSA have rendered them merely statutory in nature, meanwhile the ethical violations conducted by media continue to pile up. This mandates the need for state to intervene and regulate the media by having a licensing regime and a uniform code governing media industry.

Reference