The government argued in its advisory sent to TV channels, dated 3 March 2015, that excerpts from the documentary India’s Daughter shown on some TV channels appeared to “incite violence against women, thus compromising women’s public safety” and “provided encouragement to anti-social elements to indulge in violent acts comprising law and order.
Furthermore, according to the government note (see copy), showing certain interviews would “compromise the role of the media as the upholder of constitutional values” by making the media “likely to be seen as a voice for the perpetrator of such crimes by providing him with a medium to communicate his views on the matter repeatedly”.
The advisory also noted that screening the interview of Mukesh Singh, who is awaiting a Supreme Court appeal against a death sentence for his part in the gang rape and murder of a Delhi student in December 2012, would be “liable to be construed as interference with the due process of law”, because of his “appeal being sub-judice”.
Channels could be called up under the the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1995, and the broadcast could also fall foul of the following provisions of The Cable Television Networks Rules 1994:
(1) No programme should be carried in the cable service which— …
(d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half-truths;
(e) Is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes;
(f) Contains anything amounting to contempt of Court; …
(i) Criticizes, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country; …
(k) Denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals; …
(o) is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition.
“By itself this is not an action or formal violation of the CTN rules at this point in time,” commented Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, who has acted for broadcasters in similar cases. “The advisory is extra-legal – in the sense of a letter of caution, in case you do go ahead, then you will receive a show cause notice and then action will be commenced under the CTN.”
“There is a three- and five-strike rule,” he explained. “Even if a violation is found and they are given a token penalty, [a TV channel can have three violations in its entire lifetime].”
The rules are therefore very onerous and few channels would want to risk censure under the CTN, he said. “That’s why everyone apologises or complies for future broadcasts, hoping no formal violation is found.”
NDTV screened an hour-long static image on Sunday evening instead of the scheduled screening of the documentary.
Court ban vs John Doe?
On Tuesday 3 March, at at 10:30pm, Patiala House district court duty metropolitan magistrate Puneet Pahwa ordered on an application by the police that Mukesh Singh’s interview should not be “uploaded/transmitted/published through any web portal or print or any other & media till further orders”.
This order appears to be intended to be binding on everyone:
3/3/15 (At 10.30 PM)
Pr: IO/ Inspt Praveen Kumar, Cyber Crime Cell, EOW.
An application has been moved by the IO requesting for blocking of interview of one of the convicts in nirbhaya gang rape case, from telecasting and broadcasting on the internet and other print media. It has been stated that if the said interview is allowed to be aired, it may cause public out cry and may create law and order problems.
Heard. Since an FIR has already been lodged against the said interview and also there is a possibility of law and order problem being caused, it is hereby directed that said interview shall not be uploaded/transmitted/published through any web portal or print or any other & media till further orders. The application and this order be put up before the concerned court on 4/3/15 at 2.00 p.m.
Sd/-
Puneet Pahwa
3/3/15
Duty MM/PHC/ND
On 4 March, Delhi district court metropolitan magistrate Sanjay Khanagwal did not order for any variation of Pahwa’s order.
04.03.2015
Present- Sh. Sunil Dutt Addl. PP for the State
Application alongwith order received from the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Learned MM, OHC, New Delhi
I.O. of the case Sh. Jaswinder Singh is present
I.O. of the case has moved an application for intimation submitting that in 03.03.2015 an application for preventing the media/internet from publishing/transmitting/telecasting/uploading the interview of one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case, was made before the Ld. MM who has already been pleased to pass a restraint order till further orders.
Order dated 03.03.2015 of Sh. Puneet Pahwa Ld. MM, PHC, New Delhi be kept on record.
Sanjay Khanagwal
(MM/PHC/New Delhi)
04.03.2015
From the information and broadcasting ministry’s advisory dated 3 March
These excerpts were telecast on various channels throughout the day, with visuals of the convict, who was showing no remorse whatsoever for the heinous act. Further, the excerpts also contained his chauvinistic and derogatory views regarding women in general and the victim in particular.
These programmes also provided a platform for the convict to use the media to further his own case, especially when his appeal against his conviction, is sub-judice.
Whereas the telecast of these excerpts appear to encourage and incite violence against women, thus compromising women's public safety. They also provide encouragement to anti-social elements to indulge in violent acts compromising law and order.
Whereas the telecast of these excerpts appear to compromise the role of the media as the upholder of constitutional values as the fourth pillar of our democracy.
The media is likely to be seen as a voice for the perpetrator of such crimes by providing him a medium to communicate his views on the matter repeatedly. Further, his appeal being sub-judice, this is also liable to be construed as interference with the due process of law.
Whereas the telecast of these excerpts are liable to attract provisions of Rule 6 (1) (d, e, f, i, k and o) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
All the private satellite TV channels are accordingly advised to not telecast the documentary ‘India's daughter’ or any excerpts from therein or any programmes based on these excerpts.
Any violation of the Programme Code shall invite such action as provided for in the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Rules framed thereunder as well as the terms and conditions stipulated in the uplinking/downlinking guidelines.