Recently, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) took a significant step by requesting that the Supreme Court (SC) incorporate its Ethical Code in the Programme Code of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994. The NBA serves as the collective representation of news and current affairs broadcasters in India, and is member-funded. This article delves into the background, key points, challenges and potential solutions related to this issue.
Background
This issue was sparked by a plea to cease the telecast of a program, ‘Bindas Bol’ on Sudarshan TV, as it contained potentially harmful content directed towards Muslim entrants in civil services. The Supreme Court ruled that the content was prima facie “plainly hurtful” to the said community. This initiated a call for the NBA to propose measures to augment self-regulatory mechanisms to prohibit or penalize hate speech and derogatory content in electronic media.
Suggested Amendments by NBA
The NBA recommended that all news channels, regardless of their association with the NBA, should adhere to the Programme Code, including the proposed amendments. It also proposed that the News Broadcasters Services Authority (NBSA) should be acknowledged as an independent self-regulatory entity empowered to receive and handle complaints. This move would enhance the News Broadcasting Standards Regulations of the NBSA. The NBA further suggested to make it mandatory for channels to submit to the NBSA regulatory mechanism to obtain or renew uplinking/downlinking permissions from the government. Lastly, the NBA recommended that orders issued by the NBSA should be binding and enforceable, with tougher penalties.
Challenges
Indian laws pose various complexities while attempting to separate permissible from hate speech. An international legal definition of hate speech is not available, and what constitutes ‘hateful’ is disputed. This type of speech usually incites discrimination or violence against individuals based on their groups’ identity. Such speeches undermine the principle of equal dignity for all and inclusiveness, which are key tenets of a democratic republic. Moreover, hate speech goes beyond advocacy to reach a level of incitement.
Legal Implications
Section 153A and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalize speech that fosters enmity among different groups and speech/acts that provoke religious sentiments. These laws, while vaguely worded, are frequently invoked to restrict speech. This contradicts the permissible grounds for limiting free speech as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, especially restrictions pertaining to public order and morality.
Solutions
There is a pressing need to provide clarity in the law by distinguishing between merely offensive speech and hate speech. While offensive speech that merely disparages or is unpleasant should continue to be protected, speech that instills fear or creates a sense of exclusion from civic life should be unprotected. Restrictions on speech should only apply to vulnerable minority groups, and not to mere offensive statements.
Interpreting Laws
The Supreme Court should not shy away from clarifying ambiguities and must handle the exercise delicately. To do this, a working definition for hate speech needs to be established by interpreting laws in accordance with the constitutional right to free speech.
Moving Ahead
When it becomes clear that the main objective of a broadcast is to incite hatred or to defame a vulnerable group, the law must intervene to prevent harm. How the Supreme Court balances these matters is critical because hate speech can serve undemocratic ends once uttered, with little room for restitution.