The private member’s Bill that Rahul
Gandhi’s close aide and Congress MP
Meenakshi Natarajan was scheduled to
introduce in Parliament last week lays
down a draconian set of rules clearly
aimed to gag and threaten the media in
the name of “protecting national
interest”.Called the Print and
Electronic Media Standards and
Regulation Bill, 2012, it provides for a
media regulatory authority — part
selected by the I&B minister and three
government nominees — with a sweeping
set of powers that include imposing a
“ban” or “suspending coverage” of an
event or incident that “may pose a
threat to national security from foreign
or internal sources”.
The ban, the 14-page Bill says, shall be
“sanctioned and reviewed in writing” on
a day-to-day basis “as long as the
threat persists”.The Authority has the
power to impose a fine of up to Rs 50
lakh, suspending a media organisation’s
operations for up to 11 months, and
recommending the cancellation of its
licence.According to the Bill, this
Authority is exempt from the Right to
Information Act and can even order the
search and seizure of documents or
records of a media organisation.
The Bill lays down standards which it
says the media “must” follow. These
include: “prohibition of reporting any
news item based on unverified and
dubious material”; “exercising due care
while reporting news items related to
judiciary and legislature,”; clearly
segregating “opinion from facts,”;
“maintaining complete transparency and
impartiality in internal functioning”
and “prohibition of reporting news items
which are obscene, vulgar or
offensive.”It also lays down that the
electronic media shall not “showcase
clippings from entertainment programmes
or from those aired on entertainment
channels for more than 15 minutes of its
daily broadcast time.”
The Bill, which the Mandsaur MP was
supposed to bring on April 27 but did
not, says that “while the freedom of
speech and expression has to be
respected, there appears no other option
but to regulate the print and electronic
media and impose on it certain crucial
reasonable restrictions, which are
needed for the purpose of protecting
national interest”.The seven-member
Authority, which would have the powers
of a civil court, would comprise a
chairman who is a former Chief Justice
of India or a Supreme Court judge, and
members — “persons of impeccable
integrity and outstanding ability having
special knowledge and expertise of not
less than 10 years in matters relating
to media” — nominated by a selection
committee consisting of the Chief
Justice of India, the union minister of
information and broadcasting, and three
members appointed by the union
government.
The stated objective of the Bill is to
“ensure good quality reporting, which
does not only feed news according to
television rating points but also, in
accordance with issues of prime national
importance”.To assist the regulatory
Authority in dealing with complaints,
the Bill proposes a scrutiny panel and
an investigation panel.In the statement
of objects and reasons behind the
proposed law, Natarajan claims that live
coverage of the 26/11 Mumbai terror
attacks “compromised the police
operation,” and adds that the media has
“forgotten” that the freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19 of the
constitution comes with the caveat of
“reasonable restrictions”.
“The rights conferred by the
Constitution are sacrosanct and should
be respected. However, news value has
been dwindling every passing day...While
the freedom of speech and expression has
to be respected, there appears no other
option but to regulate the print and
electronic media and impose on it
certain crucial reasonable restrictions,
which are needed for the purpose of
protecting national interest,” says the
Bill.
Her Rules of censorship
* Regulatory authority to be notified by
the central government; exempt from RTI;
can ban coverage of an event
* Selection committee to have three
members selected by the central
government
* Among “standards”: “prohibition of
reporting of any news item based in
unverified and dubious material”;
“prohibition of publication or broadcast
of any material that is defamatory;
clear “segregation of opinions from
facts”; prohibition of reporting a news
item which is obscene, vulgar or
“offensive”
* Power to “search and seize” any
document “kept secretly at some secluded
place”. Authority can suspend operations
of the media organisation for a period
of up to 11 months
* No civil court will have jurisdiction
of any matter which the Authority is
empowered to determine |