SC says TV anchors should be “taken off the air” for amplifying hate speech

While hearing a batch of petitions filed in relation to hate speech incidents, the Supreme Court on Friday went after the role of TV channels in creating “divisions in society”. A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speech.

“Everything is driven by TRP. Channels are competing against each other. They sensationalise things, and serve an agenda,” Justice KM Joseph said, according to LiveLaw.

The judge said that offending anchors should be “taken off the air” and hefty fines should be imposed on channels which are violating the program code.

“You hit them monetarily where it matters.”

“How many times have you taken off anchors?” Justice Joseph asked the counsel representing the News Broadcasters and Digital Association.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the NBDA, said that the statutory body has taken action against many violations. He said that channels like Republic TV or Sudarshan TV are not part of the NBDA.

“We require free and balanced press. Free, but balanced too”, Justice Nagarathna added.

Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj told the bench that in the present legal scenario, the practice of self-regulation is being followed as far as media is concerned.

Advocate Shadan Farasat raised the issue of strengthening the regulatory network under the Cable TV Regulation Act against programmes spewing hate speech.

Statements made by Suresh Chavhanke against Muslims and Christians were brought up by advocate Nizam Pasha.

Pasha read out comments such as ‘Christians are less than 2% in India but their Christmas celebrations are imposed on the 98%’, ‘Hindus should learn from Buddhists of Myanmar who chased out Rohingyas’ etc. These comments are widely amplified and circulated through social media, he added.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for Suresh Chavhanke, cited the speeches of Zakir Naik and Akbaruddin Owaisi and complained that no action was taken.

“When action is taken it should be against Suresh Chavanke and them also. Action should be against both”, Jain said.

Justice Joseph pointed out that the last order of the Court had expressly stated that action should be taken regardless of the religion of the speaker. Justice Joseph also pointed out that the speeches cited in Chavhanke’s application are quite old, dating back to 2013, and said it would be better if recent instances are mentioned.

Jain then withdrew the application with the liberty to file a fresh application citing recent instances.