Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. JAIN, J.
VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LTD & ANR. – Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
W.P.(C) 3402/2013
Decided On : 24.05.2013
Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Abhishek Kale and Ms. Anushree, Advs.
Consultation with BCCC not mandatory for imposing penalties under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks Act. Penalty imposed must be proportionate to the violations and consider the nature of the content and recommendations of the IMC.
Headnote:
Obscenity - Broadcasting Regulations - The Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995, Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's channel broadcasted programmes containing obscene and vulgar content, leading to show cause notices and a penalty prohibiting transmission for 10 days. The petitioner challenged the penalty in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that consultation with the Broadcasting Contents Complaints Council (BCCC) was not mandatory for imposing penalties under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks Act. The Court upheld the penalty, considering the obscene nature of the content and the recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Council (IMC).
Issues: 1. Whether consultation with BCCC was mandatory for imposing penalties. 2. Whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the violations. 3. Whether the penalty was excessive or unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: Consultation with BCCC was not mandatory for imposing penalties under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks Act. The penalty imposed was not disproportionate or excessive considering the obscene nature of the content and the recommendations of the IMC.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. The programme “Stand Up Club” was telecast by the channel of the petitioner company on 26.5.2012 at 20-52 hours. Alleging that the said programme carried obscene dialogues and vulgar words besides being derogatory to women, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.6.2012 requiring it to show cause why action as per the provisions of Down-Linking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should not be taken against it. On 4.7.2012, another programme called “Popcorn” was broadcast by the said channel on 4.7.2012 at 07.57 hours. Alleging that the said programme appeared to be vulgar, obscene and offending to good taste and did not appear to be suitable for any restricted public exhibition, another show cause notice dated 10.10.2012 was issued to the petitioner. The first show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 10.7.2012, whereas the second show cause notice was replied on 26.10.2012.
2. The BCCC is a 13-members body headed by a former Chief Justice of this Court and includes four eminent persons, four members from any national level statutory commission and four broadcast members. The petitioner addressed a letter to Broadcasting Contents Complaints Council (BCCC) with reference to the first show cause notice received from the respondent. The matter was considered by BCCC in its meeting held on 13.9.2012. The BCCC noticing that the channel had apologized for airing the episode, had submitted that it was a genuine operational mess up and had given an undertaking not to repeat the said episode besides assuring to drop the episode with similar contents, advised the said channel to discontinue the said episode and be cautious about airing the programme having similar contents in future. Vide its letter dated 26.9.2012, BCCC informed the respondent that it had found the contents of the said episode to be objectionable and had advised the petitioner to discontinue the said episode and be cautious about airing the programme with similar contents in future.
3. Vide order dated 17.5.2013, issued with the approval of the Competent Authority, the respondent prohibited transmission or re-transmission of the said channel for 10 days on any platform throughout India with effect from 00-01 hours on 25.5.2013 till 00.01 hours on 4.6.2013. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.
4. The following three contentions have been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner (i) the respondent did not consult BCCC before imposing penalty, though such consultation was mandatory. (ii) no action was recommended by the BCCC, which is a broad-based professional body against the petitioner and (iii) the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the violation alleged to have been committed by the channel. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that (i) it was not obligatory for the respondent to consult BCCC (ii) the alleged failure to consult BCCC would be of no consequence since the BCCC also came to the conclusion that the contents of the programme telecast by the petitioners were objectionable and (iii) the Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority unless it is shown that the order passed is without jurisdiction, actuated by malafide or perverse and (iv) the penalty imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive.
5. Section 20 of The Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995, inter alia, provides that where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme, and according to the learned ASG, the consultation with BCCC not being a statutory requirement,
