[Media Trial case] You did not even spare the deceased, is this investigative journalism?: Bombay High Court asks news channels

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on news channels on their reportage in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, orally observing that they appeared to have disregarded basic norms and etiquettes of journalism particularly while reporting on the suicide of a public figure..The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was hearing submissions by news channels in the PILs filed against media trial..The Court on Wednesday raised concerns on the kind of ‘investigative journalism’ being carried out by news channels, commenting,."Putting up messages on the channel and then discussing evidence, is that investigative journalism?"Bombay High Court.They pointed out how news channels with their sensational headlines and interviews forgot all the basic norms and etiquettes of reporting on a sensitive topic.."You did not even leave the deceased! Forget the witnesses."the Court said.During the course of the hearing, the Court also enquired with Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appears for the Central Government, on how the government was not regulating the airwaves, which was public property, leaving it open to misuse by the media..The ASG clarified that while the State owns airwaves, it cannot control the content being transmitted through the airwaves..While arguing that there should not be government supervision over the media, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing for the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF), submitted that a self-regulating mechanism was sufficient to regulate the media..He pointed out that self-regulating authorities like the News Broadcasting Association (NBA) and the NBF censored the content of the media channels..“Mere censure by the panel of eminent people is bad for the reputation of the channel” he added..He also pointed out that since the media will be reporting mostly against the government, it will be difficult to ensure fair reporting if the Government is an interested party.."Let the perfect not be an enemy of the good. If the government has too much control then there will be too much censorship and no freedom of media."Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar (for NBF).Advocate Malvika Trivedi, appearing for the Republic TV, submitted that the term ‘media trial’ is being stretched by a certain section of the society and not all the citizens..She invited the Court’s attention to two aspects of the Petition being,That the actual aggrieved persons, who had a locus before this Court had not come before the court.The grievances of the petitioners – Was it against the media or against shortcoming of present regulations?.Trivedi pointed out that media played an important role in pointing out defects in the government functionaries in several cases, not just the Sushant Singh case..“There are defects in investigation. Who looks at the defects? Will there be supervision on every investigation? Is that your role?”The Court asked..Trivedi pointed out that if there are discrepancies in the facts that are being put out by the investigating agencies, then the news channel has to uncover the truth..“The State cannot decide which story goes out and which story does not. We do extensive research before putting out news and we have unearthed some hidden facts."Advocate Malvika Trivedi (for Republic TV).Advocate Kunal Tandon appearing for Times Now made submissions on three issues:The present safeguards and mechanism available to an aggrieved person;The power of courts when it comes to pre-investigation contempt and;The power of courts when it comes to pre-investigation defamation..He argued that the 'Lakshman rekha' which a news channel must maintain is subject to the popular and unpopular views.."To understand the news, the whole news must be seen, not piece meal."added Advocate Kunal Tandon (for Times Now).At this point Court asked the news channels to what extent they were willing to go for reporting news..“Why not read provisions of Criminal Procedure Code before putting out details if you care so much about the truth?” the Court asked..The Bench added a query on if the channels were willing to disregard provisions of law as well citing ‘transparent’ reporting..Advocate Hetal Jobanputra, appearing for ABP News channel, put forth an argument that there cannot be different laws for different channels. There must be uniformity, she said..She added that the NBSA had powers, that it should be declared a statutory authority and given wider powers.."There is already a Lakshman Rekha, just that all broadcasters must be brought in this umbrella." she said..Advocate Rajeev Panday appearing for Aaj Tak and India Today channels made submitted submitted that the channels were in the process of complying with orders passed by NBA in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.."... we subscribe to self-regulation. We always follow the orders by NBA."Advocate Rajeev Panday (for India Today and Aaj Tak).The Court, however, wondered if by apologizing for statements already made against a person, justice will be served to that person..Advocate Ankit Lohia appearing for Zee News submitted that the PILs being heard also acknowledged that checks and balances for media regulation were in place..There was a clear mention of what the law is and what is violated in the petition itself. Hence, he argued that there was no need for guidelines..He reiterated Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Siddharth Bhatnagar’s submissions that there were three checks to ensure that the “lakshman rekha” is maintained by media channels, i.e.:Self-regulating associations;The Central Government’s ministerial committee, andCourts..He added that “judiciary has been considered as a third pillar to keep check on the fourth pillar as per precedents.".The Court reminded Lohia that “this direction will come at a stage when the damage is irreparable and already done.”.It is easy to say if there is breach, we will intervene.the Court added..Lohia, however, asserted, ."If the news channel cross the lakshman rekha, the courts will keep a check on them. If the channels are brought in complete control, then there will be control by a pillar which they may be criticizing."Advocate Ankit Lohia (for Zee News).Incidentally, Datar had also submitted in the previous hearing, that no judicial intervention was required to issue guidelines for the electronic media as there was a functional self-regulation mechanism already in place. .He suggested that if the self-regulation mechanism fails, then the Courts should step in..Courts should step in to issue media guidelines only if self-regulation mechanism fails: NBA to Bombay High Court.The hearing in the matter will continue on Friday, October 23, at 12 noon.