Hate speech on TV channels not dealt with firmly: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a very dim view of the functioning of mainstream television news channels in the country, stating that they often give space for hate speech and then escape without any sanctions. [Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India and ors]..A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that anchors of television channels have an important duty to ensure that guests invited on their show do not cross the line."Role of anchor is very important. These speeches on mainstream media or social media that is unregulated. Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of anchor is critical. It is their duty to see that hate speech doesn't happen," Justice Joseph remarked. He stated that while freedom of speech is important, hate speech cannot be allowed on television and highlighted how one TV channel was heavily fined in the United Kingdom."One channel was fined heavily in UK. We don't have that here. They are not being dealt with firmly. They can be taken off air, fined, if such sanction comes...." he remarked.We cannot give hate any air, he emphasised..We cannot give hate any air.Supreme Court .Justice Roy also weighed in stating that unless the consequences of such hate speech hit the violators, such instances might continue..The Court also orally demanded to know as to why the government was remaining a mute spectator."Why is the government remaining a mute spectator?" asked Justice Joseph..The Court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking steps to be taken against hate speech incidents. In July, the top court had directed the Union Home Ministry to prepare a detailed chart outlining States' compliance with the general directions issued by it in the judgments of Shakti Vahini and Tehseen Poonawalla, towards curbing hate speech. During today's hearing, the Court said that politicians benefit the most out of hate speech and television channels give them the platform for the same.Senior Counsel Sanjay Hegde also echoed the same sentiments. "Channels and politicians feed on such speech. Channels get money. They keep ten people in debates," he said.He also argued that the self-regulation of news channels is done by a toothless body.One of the petitioners, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay asked whether the Court is equipped to go into individual violations each and every time it occurs."You have a point. Unless there is an institutional method to deal with it..." the Court concurred."Yesterday, Mr (Joe) Biden said we cannot give hate oxygen," Hegde submitted"Not one bit ... we cannot give hate any air," Justice Joseph remarked..On a query by the Court on why government was not taking action, Hegde quipped,"They have said go from Arnab to Arnab. Complain about this channel, then the body headed by him will regulate.".During the hearing, petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay conceded the 'bitter truth' that it was politicians frequently delivering hate speeches. Justice Joseph then remarked,"Politicians benefit the most out of it. Television channels then give them platform".The judge added that while freedom of press is important, anchors should know where to draw the line."Many a times those who want to speak are muted ... TV content is for benefit of listener, how will they make up their mind when there's a babble of voices."While Justice Joseph acknowledged that anchors will have their own views in line with the business interests of the channel, he stated that what is wrong is," ... people invited (as guests) are not being allowed to express their own views, being muted or run down. Their [anchors'] right [to freedom of press] is lesser than that of listener."The Bench, however, expressed its inability to take over powers of the legislature and frame laws in this regard, but said it would be guided by the Vishakha judgment, which had provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at workplaces as well as guidelines to deal with the same.Justice Joseph also explained how hate speech has a layered impact."Killing someone, you can do it in multiple ways. Slowly or otherwise. They keep us hooked based on certain convictions."The judge also emphasised that the media should be communicating to the masses what others are saying and not what they want to."Pillars of democracy are supposed to be independent and not take orders from anyone," he added..Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that 14 States have filed their responses. The Bench requested the Central government to assist the Court instead of taking an adversarial stand in the matter."Where is the nation headed," the Court lamented.On the government not having filed an affidavit yet, the Court asked if it thought the matter was trivial.The counsel for the Uttarakhand government submitted that action has been taken to curb incidents of hate speech, but they are caught by surprise each time as the organisers of the Dharam Sansads and such events were different each time.The Court directed the Central government to file a counter-affidavit collating the inputs by various States, and posted the case for final disposal on November 23. Hegde with advocates Anas Tanwar and Mrigank Prabhakar were requested to assist the Court by collating all the petitions and noting States' individual suggestions. [Follow our live coverage of today's hearing].[Read order]