[SSR Media Trial case] We are dealing with something unprecedented, so we have to lay down guidelines: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court today observed that in light of an unprecedented scenario, it might be required to issue guidelines to curb media trials..The Court made this observation while hearing pleas filed in the wake of the reportage on the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput..The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni informed the parties that through the arguments, they were initiating a discussion so that the government can get some suggestions to come up with a balanced policy for regulating electronic media..The Court clarified that its expectation was that “there should not be extremes, there has to be a balance. The difficulty arises when people forget their lines. We are initiating a discussion so that the government can take suggestions.”The Bench went on to note,.“We won't like to stop the media. There are precedents and we are bound by those precedents. But we are dealing with something that is not in precedents, hence we will have to lay down guidelines.”Bombay High Court.Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for one of the petitioners, completed his rejoinder submissions today..Kamat submitted that there was a binding contract between the government and the broadcasters, which came into being when the former granted licenses to the latter..He added that though the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had the power to withdraw any license granted, it left the task of penalizing to self-regulatory bodies..Kamat asserted that there are two sides of the coin for regulation of electronic media – “One side of the coin is the duty of the Union to enforce the guidelines, the other side of the coin is the duty of the broadcaster to comply with those guidelines.”.He added,."Broadcasters give an undertaking to comply with the guidelines when they want to register for airwaves. They can’t think, I will earn revenue from the airwaves, but not comply with the guidelines."Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat.He suggested that the broadcasters could challenge the guidelines instead of disregarding them at their convenience..Kamat’s next proposition was that “self-regulation should not be a substitute.”.His reasons were that:Private bodies do not have a teeth of enfocement.They are ad-hoc bodies representing the members themselves and when “acts complained are grievous, you cannot be a judge in your own cause.”Each body had their own code of conduct ‘inspired’ from the Programme Code..Kamat concluded his arguments by submitting that the answer was not to do away with statutory regulations, but to add safeguards to the statutory regulations..He submitted that constitutional courts had powers of judicial review and they could direct the legislature and executive, thereby keeping a check on them..Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh made a limited submission on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)..He submitted that being responsible organisations who knew their jobs well, they never leaked out any information to the media, as was alleged in the petition..Advocates Alankar Kirpekar appearing for India Today and Zeeshan Hashmi appearing for News Nation submitted that the jurisdiction of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) was never challenged by the channels, nor were there any complaints against the self-regulatory body..In the last hearing, the High Court came down heavily on news channels for their reportage in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, observing that they appeared to have disregarded basic norms and etiquette of journalism..[Media Trial case] You did not even spare the deceased, is this investigative journalism?: Bombay High Court asks news channels.The matter is adjourned for rejoinders by Senior Advocates Aspi Chinoy and Arvind Datar on October 29.