[Media Trial in SSR Case] Govt abdicated duty in merely forwarding complaints to private, self-appointed orgs: Devadatt Kamat to Bom HC

The Central Government abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities in confining to simply forwarding complaints made over media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case to "private, self-appointed" organisations such as the News Broadcasting Association (NBA), argued Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat before the Bombay High Court on Monday. .Appearing for a petitioner in the PILs filed against media trial in the wake of the media reportage in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, Kamat argued, ."I am surprised at how the Union of India can abdicate its own statutory regime, its own contractual obligations and say 'the private self-appointed organisations will look into these acts of egregiousness.' Mr (Aspi) Chinoy has already shown there were ex facie violations of the programme code... The authority should have considered those complaints under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines. They are empowered to enquire and impose penalties for programme code violations ...".The matter was taken up today by the Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni. .Asserting that the Central Government is sufficiently empowered under the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995 and the Uplinking and Downlinking guidelines to act against broadcasters who violate the programme code, Kamat contended, ."When they have a regime in place, where is the question of Government of India abdicating its duties and asking these private, self-righteous associations?"Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat.Pointing out that airwaves are public property, Kamat argued that private broadcasters are only permitted to use the same through a license and subject to their following the programme code. Kamat added that programme code violations would include, broadly, half-truths, innuendos and contempt of court. ."When a matter is pending investigation or is at the stage of trial, publishing material which tends to portray a particular outcome, this amounts to contempt", he argued, adding that this has been the consistent view of the Court for the past three decades. .Kamat also highlighted that there was a practical problem that crops up if complaints against the media are only forwarded to organisations such as the NBA and the News Broadcasters Federation. .He pointed out, for instances, that Republic TV in its affidavit had submitted that it is not a member of the NBA, and therefore not obliged to follow the NBA's guidelines. "They (Republic) say 'we are not members of the NBA, we are not obliged to follow their guidelines.' Therefore, the UOI cannot say 'we will leave this field open and let the private, self-appointed keepers of righteousness look into this', Kamat argued. ."The channel says they are not bound (by the NBA guidelines) and Government forwards the complaint these bodies. (There was) total non-application of mind."Kamat added.Advocate Rajesh Inamdar also weighed in on this aspect. The Court was told that the Republic TV was earlier hauled up by the NBA over some reportage and told to comply with some directions. However, instead of complying with these directions, Republic went on to form the News Broadcasters Federation. ."So, tomorrow if some other channel has some difference of opinion with the NBA, they will form their own association!"Advocate Rajesh Inamdar.Adding another dimension to their case, Kamat also contended that the "purported leakage" of information by investigating agencies to the media is also media trial, as it interferes with the administration of justice. ."Publication of prosecution material or the line of questioning by investigation agencies is also an affront to the administration of justice", he argued. .He also pointed out that the CBI and ED had submitted on affidavit that they did not have the information broadcasted by the media. If that is the case, the matter is all the more serious, Kamat argued. "This becomes even more serious. How are these channels getting access? This would clearly interfere with the administration of justice", Kamat contended.. Echoing earlier submissions made by Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, Kamat also added, ."This whole theory of murder (in the Sushant Singh Rajput case) was propounded for 4 or 5 months on National TV...Now since AIIMS report rules out the murder, what happens to the months of slandering?"Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat.As the hearings closed, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitted that Government's limited control over the media is in the interest of the media's independence. .The Bench, however, shot back,"When you have a Press Council of India for print media, why don't you have a similar mechanism for electronic media?".The Court proceeded to adjourn the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.