IMPORTANT POINT
There is an efficacious remedy available to any aggrieved person to approach the Press Council constituted under the Act, 1978. Apart from the same, in order to regulate and control the cable television networks, the Government of India has made the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, wherein sufficient provisions are made to control the functioning of the electronic media and any aggrieved person is entitled to approach the authorities constituted thereunder and seek to redress the grievances.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

This Public Interest Litigation is filed by an Advocate, seeking to protect, the interest of the community of lawyers, and violation of the fundamental rights of the public at large regarding their rights to be kept informed about the current social, political, economic, cultural and other topics and important issues, to enable them to understand and form an opinion, how they are managed by Government and administration including but not limited to the important judicial pronouncements. Basically, petitioner wants a guideline to be formed by this court to regulate the activities of the print and electronic media.

2. According to the petitioner, honest and truthful representation of the events from time to time is envisaged in the scheme of the Constitution of India. In a democratic set up, citizens must be able to form their own opinion, comments and view points on such matters and events that affect their future. The right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India is not absolute as it is bound by sub-clause (2). According to the petitioner, deliberate planting of lies, repeated broadcast of news to malign the image of judiciary, government functionaries, police force, political leaders including but not limited to Prime Minister, Chief Minister and other Ministers at the will, whims and fancies without personally verifying the correctness or source in violation of broadcasting ethics exceed the scheme of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, thus creating hindrances in discharging duties of functionaries at the critical positions. It is also stated that the present acts of the media violates the principle of consideration of innocence until proved guilty and the media according to their political or other socio-economic affiliation proclaim people as guilty to generate negative opinion on people of their target in violation of fundamental rights of the targeted victims. It is submitted that such conduct on the part of the media not only creates unrest in the community, but also affects the credibility of the news broadcasted to put the public at large in a great dilemma as to what to believe and what not. Thus, according to the petitioner, the news and opinions published by the media houses infringe the fundamental rights of the citizens to know the truth and allow some unscrupulous people to indulge in cyber bullying on social media platform with the support of the unauthenticated opinions published by the media houses and cause irreparable damage to the dignity and credibility of certain personnel. Moreover, most of the media houses are engaged in spreading news of their interest to disintegrate community by creating political and communal polarisation in the society. It is submitted that due to such conduct on the part of the media houses, the right to privacy which is a fundamental right protecting the inner sphere of the individual from interference of both the State and non-State actors and the freedom of the individuals to make autonomous choices in life are materially affected. That apart, it is submitted that the media houses are proclaiming the names of the persons not even named in the FIR, and stories are being planted to create suspicion in the minds of the public at large. Therefore, such an act would amount to contempt of court, since the news might prejudice the judiciary. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that the legitimacy of such publication is questionable as criminals are not punished according to their political affiliation or religion or caste and making false and baseless allegations against the elected functionaries, Chief Minister, Ministers or Prime Minister would amount to contempt and legitimacy of such unfounded allegations are doubtful. It is also stated that there is no rational connection between allegations and the report published. Reputation, being a fundamental right, the State