The Supreme Court Monday said that self-regulation of television channels has proved to be ineffective and the Court will issue guidelines to strengthen regulation of tv channels..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said that unless rules are made stringent, there is no compulsion on tv channels to comply with the same."You say TV channels practice self restraint. I don't know how many in court would agree with you. Everybody went berserk whether it was a murder etc. You preempt the investigation. What is the fine you impose? ₹1 lakh! How much does a channel earn in one day. Unless you make the rules stringent no TV channel has no compulsion to comply. For any violation if there is a lakh penalty then what stops them?" CJI Chandrachud asked..The bench then said that it is proposing to strengthen the framework. "We will strengthen the framework. We have seen the uplinking and downlinking guidelines. We will tweak the Bombay High Court judgment. But we will strengthen the regulations now," the Court remarked.The Court, therefore, sought suggestions on the present penalty of ₹1 lakh which is imposed on news channels for violation of NBA guidelines."This Court has to consider whether steps taken to frame self regulatory mechanism needs to be strengthened with regard to framework," the bench further said in its order.The Court also directed Senior Counsel Arvind Datar, appearing for the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), to seek suggestions from Justices AK Sikri and RV Raveendran on self-regulation of TV channels."Mr Datar will seek suggestions from Justices Sikri and Raveendran so that it can be submitted before the court. Centre to file the counter to this," the bench directed.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by NBA against a Bombay High Court verdict that contained adverse observations about the lack of teeth in self-regulation of TV channels.Datar, appearing for NBA, said,"We are against what Bombay High Court observed. Please see the downlinking guidelines.. If we pass five adverse orders against a channel then their license will not be renewed. High Court says the self-regulatory mechanism is not controlled by the statutory body and the Nariman committee especially sought the same thing. We are aggrieved by the adverse remarks. Like we failed the hopes of citizens etc should not be held against me."TV Channels have to be self-regulated and there cannot and should not be any control, Datar maintained.The Court, however, said that self-regulation should also have deterrent effect."While we appreciate there has to be self regulation but the self regulation has to be effective. Having a former Supreme Court judge is not enough. They are also bound by the regulations. How do you give bite to your regulations to make it more effective? The penalty should be a dislodgement fee sorts," the Court underlined..The bench also questioned the NBA on when the fine of ₹1 lakh was devised"When was the Rs 1 lakh fine devised," CJI Chandrachud asked."2008," replied Datar.,"So from last 15 years you kept the same. The fine should be in proportion with the profiles earned by the channel from that show. The self regulatory mechanism has to be effective. You virtually pre empt the criminal investigation. We agree that government interference should not be there..." the CJI replied.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central government said,"There is three tier system. There are other associations representing other channels too. We will place them on record as well."Advocate Amit Pai pointed out another shortcoming of self-regulation."Earlier there is an instance of a TV channel. When the NBA imposed a penalty of RS 1 lakh they left the membership of the association and joined another one," he said..The Court then proceeded to issue notice on the plea and also sought suggestions on the present penalty which is imposed on news channels for violation of NBA guidelines."Let counter affidavit be filed in three weeks. The suggestions to be placed before the court will be also on the aspect of penalty. The penalty of ₹1 lakh was fixed in 2008 and has not been changed since then," the Court said in its order. As regards self-regulation, the Court said that the same needs to be strengthened and the Court will examine the same as well."Mr Datar states that Bombay High Court has noted that self regulatory mechanism evolved in Re: destruction of public property case may not be correct in law with regard to uplinking and downlinking guidelines and that the association is headed by former Supreme Court judge and 4,000 complaint already disposed of. It appears max penalty imposed is 1 lakh and it was fixed in 2008 and channel is required to run an apology statement. This court has to consider whether steps taken to frame self regulatory mechanism needs to be strengthened with regard to framework and final orders to be passed," the bench said in its order.