WHY AM I OPPOSED TO THE BAN ON NDTV?

M. Gautham Machaiah

1. My opposition stems from the fact that I have been a journalist, and not because I love NDTV or hate any ideology. Had such a ban been imposed by the Congress government on Times Now, a channel that I am not particularly fond of, my protest would have been equally vociferous

2. The ban was imposed under Rule 6 (1) (p) of Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1994, which prohibits ‘live coverage’ of anti-terrorist operations by security forces. This rule was added in June, 2015, by the NDA government. According to Justice Markandey Katju, retired judge of the Supreme Court, the ban is clearly illegal. “The ban is on showing ‘live coverage’ of anti-terrorist operations by the security forces. Live coverage means showing scenes of security forces searching or pursuing terrorists, or fighting with them. Mere reporting about anti-terrorist operations is not live coverage. NDTV had only reported anti-terrorist operations, but had not shown any scenes of security forces chasing or fighting with terrorists. So, there was no live coverage.” I have no option but to rely on Justice Katju’s opinion, because the government has not yet contradicted it though it is widely circulated in the social media

3. One question that looms large is: Why has NDTV India been singled out? “Every channel and newspaper had similar coverage. In fact, NDTV’s coverage was particularly balanced,” says a statement from NDTV. Interestingly, the ban has been imposed on NDTV Hindi and not on NDTV English. Being sister channels, it is common to share footage and I am sure the same or similar content would have been telecast by NDTV English too. Why have NDTV English and other channels been spared?

4. In the United States, the media draws its freedom and independence from the first amendment to the Constitution in 1791. In India, the Freedom of the Press is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and the media relies on Article 19 (1) (a), that is, The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. This is not an unfettered right and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Obviously, the media cannot be allowed a free run and should be brought to book when it violates the law of the land

5. However, in a democracy the role of regulating the media should be with an independent authority and not in the hands of the government of the day, because this power can be used to stifle independent media or browbeat news organisations that are not pliable. In this case, the government has subjected itself to criticism because it has played the role of the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge

6. Is there an independent authority to deal with media transgressions? The News Broadcasters Association, a body of news and current affairs broadcasters in India has set up the News Broadcasters Standards Authority (NBSA) headed by Justice R.V. Raveendran, to specifically deal with complaints against news channels. Even if a complaint is received directly by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), it is referred to NBSA for adjudication. If the complainant, is dissatisfied with the action taken by NBSA, he can once again approach the MIB. To my knowledge, the NBSA has adjudicated all complaints referred to it satisfactorily and there have been no instances of complainants approaching the MIB thereafter. Almost all channels be it NDTV, Times Now, CNN IBN or Zee News have been rapped by NBSA at some point or the other. Some channels have been directed to pay hefty fines or carry scrolls of apology. None of these led to a public outcry because the decision was taken by an independent bod

The right course of action for the government was to refer the NDTV issue to NBSA. Had NDTV been condemned by a peer body of the industry, it would have been a slap on the face. Today, NDTV could not have played the victim card, as no media house would have extended support. In case, the government was not satisfied with the NBSA’s decision it could have sought judicial redress. There was no need for the government to dirty its hands

7.  It appears that NDTV is just a test case for a larger plan to control the media or send a strong message to channels that do not tow the government line. Such unilateral decisions ignoring an independent body like NBSA or the judicial process is a dangerous trend which could hit at the very foundation of the Freedom of Speech and Expression

8.  I am not for a moment suggesting that the media should go scot free. In fact, during the Cauvery dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, I had strongly advocated action against some regional channels for fomenting trouble and promoting ill will. Errant channels should be brought to book, but by following the due process of law. Banning channels without a fair trial is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of the government

9. People who are supporting the NDTV ban should realise that this government is not permanent. Tomorrow there could be a new government which could cite this dangerous precedent and ban channel like Times Now or Zee News. Thus, this decision of the government should be strongly objected to by all media houses

10. Many supporters of the ban, give the instance of Emergency where the media was gagged. Well, two wrong do not make a right. Others speak of how several channels were banned by UPA on grounds of adult content and nudity. To compare the restriction of pornography to a regressive action against a news channel is absurd