MEDIA AND

TELECOMMUNICATION LAW
DEFAMATION
Law of defamation is a recognition of the inherent right of every individual to the
preservation of his honour and the esteem in which he is held by the society.

One has to balance the freedom of speech provided in Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the
right of the person to safeguard his honour and reputation.

Section 499 of Indian Penal Code defines defamation:

Whoever by words either spoken of intended to be read, or buy signs or by visible

representation, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm
or knowing or having reason to believe that such person, is said, except in cases herein after
excepted, to defame that person.

Taki Hussain

Direct communication to the defamed was held to be no publication under the Code by a
majority of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Taki Hussain the accused sent a
suit notice to a policeman claiming a damages for unjustifiable search of his house made by
the latter, attributing malice, and bribery to him. The notice was full of defamatory writings.
The policeman sued him for defamation. The majority of the Full Bench held that there was
no publication as contemplated under section as there was no communication to a third
person other than the defamed.

The publisher of a newspaper is responsible for defamatory matter published in such paper
whether he knows the contents of such paper or not. The editor of a journal is in no better
position than any other ordinary subject with regard to his liability for libel.

When a particular message is prima facie non-defamatory and the complainant can show that
it is really defamatory of him from the circumstances and nature of the publication. Such a
passage is called “innuendo‘.

Publication in its primary sense of communication by the defendant to a person other than the
defamed is the basis of liability in English civil law of defamation i.e., in torts. This principle
which is not accepted as the basic principle of English Penal Law of defamation is accepted
as the basic principle of Indian Penal Code.

10 exceptions to S 499:

● imputation of truth for public good

● public conduct of public servants
● fair comment on public conduct of public men other then public servants
 ● publication of reports of proceedings of court
●
● merits of cases or conduct of witnesses
● merits of public performance- literary criticism
● censure in good faith by anyone in authority
● complaint to authority
● caution in good faith
● Imputation for protection of interests:

In Khushboo v. Kannaimmal arose out of criminal complaints filed against the leading south
Indian film star, Khushboo for the views she expressed on increased pre-marital sex in urban
India and live-in relationships. The publication of these comments caused a furore and was
followed by the filing of several criminal complaints. The case for defamation failed since the
complainants failed to show under Section 499 IPC that there was any intent to harm the
reputation of the complainants, nor could there be any actual harm to the reputation of the
complainants. Thus, both the necessary ingredients, mens rea and actus reus were missing.

Remedies

1. Injunction
2. Damages
3. Costs
4. General and Special Damages

Defamation Online
Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 punishes the sending of offensive
messages by means of a communication service or a computer source. Section 66-A is rather
liberally worded and the communication of any information which is "grossly offensive" or
has "menacing character" or which is known to be false but is for the purpose of causing
"annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, intimidation, enmity, hatred or
ill-will" is punishable with a three year jail term.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

constitutional validity of Section 66-A

The Court agreed that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a
computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or
insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression. The Court invalidated Section 66A of ITA in its entirety as it violated the right to
freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

In April 2011, pressured by the increasing public ire against govern mental failure and
corruption, the government notified Intermediary Guidelines under the Information
Technology Act, 2000, creating obligations on intermediaries such as Google and Facebook
to weed out information that is "harassing", "disparaging", "hateful", "blasphemous" or
"otherwise unlawful in any manner".
Every message posted on a bulletin board and every web page which is accessible to and
accessed by computer-users has been published." An electronic publication could take place
through the email, online bulletin board messages, chat room messages, music downloads,
audio files, screaming videos, digital photographs and so on.

Avinash Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)

In Avinash Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), the CEO of Bazee.com, an online site through
which parties could sell things to one another, was arrested on the charge of an unidentified
third person selling child pornography CDs through the website. He was booked under
Section 67, Information Technology Act, 2000. It was contended that he had no control over
the items being sold and on knowledge of such a transaction, immediate steps were taken to
withdraw the same from the website. While granting bail to the accused, the court held that
the accused had no control or knowledge of such an act, and that immediate remedial
steps had been taken.

Subramanian Swamy v. UOI

constitutionality of the criminal offence of defamation was challenged before SC

Question was whether the criminal defamation provisions violate the concept of
reasonableness.

The court observed:

● the State had chosen the criminal law as one of the avenues to protect reputation
● criminal law of defamation does not have an undue chilling effect on free speech and
expression
● an imputation can only be treated as defamatory if it lowers the person’s character or
credit
● truth is a defense when the statement also serves the public good
● penal code provision is not disproportionate

TRAI
Established 1997 by the TRAI Act 1997

It regulates telecom services, including, fixation or revision of tariffs for telecom services
which were earlier vested in the Central Govt

HQ in New Delhi.

Constitution of TRAI

● Chairperson
● 2 whole time members
● 2 part time members
All appointed by the GOI. The Chairperson has powers of general superintendence and he
presides over the meetings. One of the members will be appointed as Vice-Chairperson.

Tenure of Members - Term of 3 years or till the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier

Functions

1. make recommendations of the following matters

● introduction of new service providers

● revocation of license on non-compliance
● measures to facilitate competition and promote efficiency
● technological improvements in the services

1. Ensure compliance with terms and conditions of license

2. Ensure technical compatibility and effective inter connection between different
service providers
3. lay down standards of quality of service
4. Timely notification of the rates at which telecommunication services are to be
provided

Recommendations of TRAI are not binding on the Central Govt. If they don’t accept any
recommendation they refer it back to TRAI for reconsideration.

Powers

1. Order for Inspection: They can direct the officer or any employee to inspect the books
of accounts of any service provider
2. Issue Directions to Service Providers: that may consider necessary for proper
functioning
3. Appointments for Inquiry: It may appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in
relation to the affairs or any service provider.
4. Order for Furnishing Information: It can call upon any service provider to furnish in
writing the information or explanation as may be required by authority

There is a TDSAT - Telecom Dispute Settlement & Appellate Tribunal

Disputes they can adjudicate upon

● dispute between licensor (central govt) and licensee

● between two or more service providers
● between service providers and a group of consumers

HATE SPEECH
In India there is no statutory definition given to hate speech. It does not find any place under
Art 19(2) of the Constitution. However, as an exception to freedom of expression, certain
legal restrictions which forbid specific types of speech (security of state, incitement of
offence, defamation). Following are the statutes which regulate hate speech in India.
IPC

● S.153A - promotion of hostility between various groups on the grounds of religion,

race, residence, language.
● S.124A -sedition.
● S.505 - publication or circulation of any remark, rumour or report inciting public
mischief and hostility, hatred, enmity etc.

Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995

● The Act requires that all programs and advertisements, telecasted in TV confirm to
the program code and advertisement code and these Codes are given under Cable
Television Network Rules

IT Act, 2000

● online hate speech was defined under this Act under S.66A
● corollary clause to S.66A if S.69A - government can down any content if it thinks it is
hateful in a computer source.
● State can direct any of the agencies to prevent access to such information.
● S.66A struck down by Shreya Singhal v. UOI because it wasn’t a reasonable
restriction u/ Art 19

2020 judgement - Amish Devgan v. UOI

There was a debate on a program Aar Paar, on News18 India. The debate was on the Place of
Worship (Special Provision) Act. The news presenter he referred to Khwaja Moinuddin
Chisti as an attacker or a lootera. The court said it is important to distinguish between free
speech (which includes the right to remark, support or criticize the government) and hate
speech (which involves inciting or spreading hatred towards a certain group or community).

Intermediary Guidelines, 2011- obligations of intermediary to weed out harassing

information.

In foreign jurisdiction such as, US and Australia, Canada, Germany, UK , France, they
prosecute online hate speech. Hate speech does not have the same constitutional protection in
most countries. But in these countries hate speech is statutorily better regulated than in India.

When it comes to online hate speech, the disparities in country legal systems offer a genuine
issue. What can be read as hate speech in nations with stringent regulations is really outside
the jurisdiction.

FREEDOM OF PRESS/ PUBLIC ORDER

print media includes newspaper, magazine, journal, periodicals, books, and other printed
materials.
press is one of the pillars of democracy. Freedom of press is v important in a democracy.
Press = means of expression of opinions and it a mean of communication to public.

So expression also includes publication.

Freedom of Press= freedom of publication+ freedom of circulation.

Freedom of Press also includes absence of interference from State.

Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI

Court said there cannot be any interference from the govt in the name of public interest. The
purpose of press is to advance public interest without which a democracy cannot make
reasonable judgements. It is the duty of the courts to uphold the freedom of press, and
invalidate laws of the State which interfere with the freedom of press.

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

An order of the Madras govt banned the entry of weekly English journal called “the
Crossroads”. The order was challenged on the grounds of maintenance of public order. The
court held the order to be void and unconstitutional and said that freedom of speech and
expression, should also include freedom of propagation of ideas. It’s not a valid ground under
Art19(2).

Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi

the proposition laid down in the case is that imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a
restriction on the liberty of press which is an essential part of freedom of speech and
expression

After these cases, 1st constitutional amendment of 1951 came, which added public order and
incitement as additional grounds under Art 19(2).

Public Order
The proximity test requires the relationship between speech and public order to be imminent.

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP

The court in this case, the court rejected the argument that the State can only impose
restrictions, on the freedom of speech and expression, if it demonstrates a proximate link
bringing speech and public order. The court focused on the breadth of phrase “in the interest
of” but had not subjected the reasonable requirement to its analysis. It allowed the govt wide
leeway in restricting speech.

Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia

the court changed its position, over-ruling the above case held that there must be a proximate
relationship between speech and public disorder and that it must not be remote fanciful or far-
fetched. The breadth of the phrase “in the interests of” was qualified from the perspective of
reasonable lens.

● Prior restraint in the interests of public order is justified under Article 19(2), subject to
a test of proximity.
● By virtue of the Gujarat High Court judgment in 2015, prior restraint extends to the
online sphere as well.

SEDITION
The term means “ conduct or speech which results in mutiny against the authority of the
state”

S.124A of the IPC deals with the law of sedition and it is considered as a reasonable
restriction on freedom of speech. For an act to be called seditious it should have the following
components:

● any words which can either be written or spoken or sings which include, placards or
posters ( visible representation)
● must bring hatred/contempt/disaffection against the Indian Government
● must result in ‘imminent violence’ or public disorder

In India, what constitutes as sedition is highly debatable.

S.95 of the CrPC

gives the govt the right to forfeit material punishable u/S.124A on stating grounds. The 2
conditions to be met for that are:

● that the material is punishable u/S.124A

● the govt gives grounds for its opinion to forfeit the material

Applicable legislations

● Seditious Meetings Act, 1911

● UAPA -S.2(o)(iii)

Sedition is a non-bailable offence. Punishment ranges from 3 years to imprisonment for life.

Sedition is used as tool in the hands of the government - State or central, and irrespective of
political colour - to intimidate and muzzle the media as well as critics of the govt’s policies
and actions.

The law on sedition was brought in by colonial autocratic regime for a specific purpose, and
there are debates that this should not have been carried on to post-independence
democratically elected government

Sedition laws were used to curb dissent in England.

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

An order of the Madras govt banned the entry of weekly English journal called “the
Crossroads”. The order was challenged on the grounds of maintenance of public order. The
court held the order to be void and unconstitutional and said that freedom of speech and
expression, should also include freedom of propagation of ideas. It’s not a valid ground under
Art19(2).

Ram Nandan v. State

the constitutional validity of section S.124A was challenged. Ram Nandan was convicted for
a speech he made to a group of villagers and this was overturned by the Court.

It was explained that it was possible for people who legitimately and peacefully criticize govt
to be caught in the “mischief of S.124A of the IPC”. For this this reason he said conviction
should be invalidated

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

this case overturned the decision in Ram Nandan case and declared sedition law
constitutional.

The court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, also curtailed its meaning and
limited its applicability to acts involving intention or tendency to create destruction, or
disorder of law and order, or incitement of violence

If used arbitrarily the section could curtail freedom of speech and expression under the
Constitution. The judges perceived that if the sedition law were to be given a more extensive
and wider interpretation, it would not survive the test of constitutionality

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab

SC overturned sedition conviction for sloganeers who shouted incendiary slogans shortly
after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, on the grounds that the slogans raised did not lead to
violence.

Vinod Dua v. UOI

FIR was lodged against senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition, public nuisance, printing
defamatory material and public mischief by a BJP leader over a YouTube Video criticizing
the PM regarding the government’s response to covid. SC quashed the FIR. It was held that
every journalist would be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh and every
prosecution u/Ss. 124A and 505 must be in strict conformity with scope and ambit of said
sections as explained in Kedar Nath Singh.
 OBSCENITY
● obscene derived from the Latin word “obscenus” which means fowl, repulsive or
detestable.
● obscene is a term before it should to be related to sexual morality but now it is used in
connection to images or an content that is offensive
● IPC and IT Act are applicable

IPC

S.292-294

S.292 - according to this section any publication of a book, pamphlet, any paper or writing,
drawing will be deemed to be obscene if :

● if it suggestive in any manner

● if it appeals to prurient interests
● if it affects or attempts to corrupts the reader

Exceptions to S.292

● any book, paper, writing etc the publication of which is proved to be justified for
public good on the ground that it is in interest of science, art, general concern, or for
religion purposes.
● any representation engraved or sculpted, on any ancient monument or temple, or car
used to religious purposes.

S.293

this section provides that anyone who sells, distributes or circulates to any person under the
age of 21 any obscene object shall be punished on first conviction, with an imprisonment and
fine which may extend up to 3 years and Rs.2000

S.294 - any obscene acts or songs

whoever to the annoyance of others:

● does any obscene act in any public place

● sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words near any public place

shall be punished with imprisonment or fine or both

IT Act

S.67

Punishment of publishing or transmitting nay obscene material in electronic form.

Indecent Representation Of Women (Prohibition Act), 1986

Young Person Harmful Publication Act, 1955

Regina v. Hicklin

Court stated that if the matter charged as obscenity is to corrupt those whose minds are
impressionable and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall into.

The test had some drawbacks. Even the part of some writing taken out of context could
considered obscene

Roth v. US

The problems of Hicklin test was discussed in detail. Under this case the court repudiated the
Hicklin test. Defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose dominant theme was taken as
a whole appeal, to the prurient interest of the average person applying contemporary
community standard. Only material meeting this test could be banned as obscene

Miller v. California

Miller test. The court in an attempt to set limits devised a set of 3 criteria that must be met for
any publication or work to be legitimately subject to State regulation. The 3 criteria are:

● whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find
the work, taken as a whole, appealing to the prurient interest
● whether the work depicts or describes, in any offensive way, sexual conduct, as
specifically defined by applicable state law
● whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value.

Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra- 1964

● constitutionality of S.292 of IPC

● State adopted the Hicklin Test
● The test assessed obscenity by the standard of an individual who was open to immoral
influences and would likely to be corrupted or depraved by the material in question
● Drawback-A wide range of material could be termed as obscene under this test

Aveek Sarkar v. State of WB- 2014

● over ruled Ranjit Udeshi

● the scope of obscenity has been significantly reduced by the judiciary over the years
● SC did not apply the British Hicklin test and used the American Roth Test instead
● as per this test, obscenity has to be evaluated from an average person’s perspective,
applying prevailing community standards
● The contemporary community standards test takes into account, the values in society
and how something which could be considered obscene ten years back would not be
considered obscene today
 CENSORSHIP
what is censorship - refers to regulation and suppression or speech and writing perceived to
be detrimental to the public good. It includes the review of media content that can be deemed,
pornographic, political offensive or a security threat. It also includes official prohibition or
restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social or moral order. It
can be imposed by a govt authority, sometimes by a religious authority and occasionally by
private organisations. It falls within the right to freedom of speech and expression, due to
lack of clarity over the medium of communications of ideas in the clause of Art 19(1)(a)

The censorship process intra vires to the provisions of the restrictions, provided under Art
19(2) are valid in consonance to the doctrine of rule of law.

How does Censorship work in India?

CrPC

S.95 - allows forfeiture of certain content and publications

Central Bureau of Film Certification

● Statutory body operational under Cinematography Act, 1952

● regulates content of films that brought into the public domain. It follows the system of
prior certification of films and broadcasters are bound by the guidelines under the
Program code and Advertisement Code to follow the certification provided

Constitution of CBFC (S.3)

● chairman and other members whose number shall not be more than 25 and not less
than 12.
● appointed by Central govt
● Members tenure is v flexible. No min or max tenure. Tenure is subject to the Central
Govt
● Central govt has the authority to terminate tenure on legitimate grounds whenever
possible
● Chairman’s tenure- 3 years and remains in office until a successor is appointed.

Examination of Films

If a person desires to display any film, it has to be done in compliance w the Act. Person has
to make an application to the board for a certificate. Board after examining will give
certificate.

The board has the right to:

1. sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition

2. Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults
 3. direct the applicant to make such cuts and changes to the film and it may deem
necessary
4. refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition

Types of certification

S.5A

4 types of certification:

● universal (U)
● parental guidance (U/A)
● Adults only (A)
● restricted to special class of persons (S)

Objectives of Film Certification

Main objectives

● to ensure that the film medium is held accountable

● to protect the sensitivity of standards and societal value
● to ensure that creative freedom and expression are not inadvertently restricted
● to make adjustments according to the current changes in society
● to ensure that the film’s concept provides healthy and clean entertainment
● to ensure that the film is of an appropriate cinematographic standard and artistic value
● to ensure that the film is judged in its entirety and not from a one-tracked biased
perspective

KA Abbas v. UOI

SC evaluated the censorship of cinematography about the right of freedom of speech and
expression

it was filed about the ‘U’ recognition of the movie- which was refused by the board.
Petitioner applied for the amendment of the pre-censorship and it was being approved by the
cinematograph of the film. Petitioner said pre-censorship of movies itself cannot be accepted
under the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The SC court held that censorship of films, including pre-censorship was constitutionally in
India as it was a reasonable restriction within Art 19(2).

S Rangarajan v. P Jagjivan Ram

constitutionality of censorship. Whether the Tamil film “Ore Oru Gramathile” should be
granted U certification. The film appears to condemn the exploitation of the people based on
their caste. SC ruled that as long as there is no proclamation in the film that threatens to take
over the govt through unlawful means and no indication of impairment in the country’s
integrity, the U certificate can be granted.

Press Council of India

statutory and quasi-judicial body under Press Council Act.

It acts as a self-regulatory body for the press and regulates what constitutes the Media domain

this body emphasizes the need for media persons and journalists to self regulate and act as a
watch dog for media content at large to assess if it goes against press ethics and public
interests

Cable Television Networks Act

Filters the content that can be broadcasted and other provisions

Censorship on Social Media and OTT Platforms

IT Act

S.67A, 67B, 67C, and 69A

IT Rules 2021 - OTT Platforms

these were preceded by the amendments to the Allocation of Business Rules under the IT Act
2000, to bring films, AV programs, news, current affairs content, including OTT platforms
under the purview of MIB

The IT Rules were brought after this amendment includes new compliance and grievance
redressal mechanisms for social media, OTT, digital news and even messaging apps.

Prior Restraint
the act of imposing fetters on publication prior to its publication even though same is subject
to other consequences of law.

Brij Bhushan Case, KA Abbas Case, Romesh Thappar Case

R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Auto biography of Auto Shankar- SC held that neither the govt not the officials who
apprehend that they may be defamed had the right to impose prior restraint up on the
publication of the autobiography. This movie was likely to reveal a nexus between criminals
and higher police officials. The Court held that the remedy of public officials if any will arise
only after the publication.

BROADCASTING
History of Broadcasting
● Broadcasting revolution took place in the 1990s
 ● Pre independence - governed by the archaic Telegraph Act, 1885 which gave power to
the government to control the establishment, maintenance and working of wireless
apparatus. Government’s monopoly over radio and TV was derived from this Act.
● 1927 – first radio service by the Indian Broadcasting Company later went into
liquidation
● Broadcasting was placed under the direct control of the government of India and a
service began, the Indian State Broadcasting Service.
● 1932 – British Broadcasting Service
● 1933 – The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 enacted to deal with the possession of
wireless apparatus and radio receivers which were not covered by the Telegraph Act,
1885. This Act made the possession of a radio set without a license an offence.
● 1936 – Indian state broadcasting service became the All India Radio and was
transferred from the Dept of Labout to the dept of Communications
● 1941 – The dept of Information and Broadcast came
● 1947 – after independence The dept of Information and Broadcast became the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. His ensure that broadcasting was closey
controlled by the central govt.
● 1950 – COI – Article 19.
● 1952 – The cinematograph Act for censorship of films.
● 1959 – TV only in Delhi
● By 1972 – TV in Bombay
● 1973 – TV in border aread – Srinagar and Amristsar.
● TV was used to project government viewpoint on social and political issues
● 1975 – gross abuse of TV during emergency. Politcal party demand for autonomy of
TV.
● 1977 - After emergency – first non congress govt commissioned a white paper titled “
white paper on the misuse of the mass media during the emergency. Working grouo
was constituted to look into autonomy for Akashavani and Doordarshan. Proposed the
setting up of a trust named Akash Bharati or National Broadcasting Trust. This was a
bill.
● 1979 – Disoolution of Lok Sabha bill lapsed
● 1980 – bill rejected
● 1982 – on recommendation of Advisory committee for the restructuring of various
media the Ministry issued document called New Policy for Broadcast Media.
● 1989 – Prasar Bharti Bill introduced – corporation governed by board of governors.
● 1990 – Bill passed with slight changes by diluting the corporations autonomy.
● The initial reaction of the government to the satellite invasion was one of inertia. The
government did not prohibit nor did it permit it. The growth of cable TV was
completely unorganised and the result of enterprises. The state had no role in it
● 1995 – Ministry of Information and broadcasting, Govt of India v Cricket Ass. Of
Bengal (Hero Cup case) – directed an establishment of an autonomous broadcasting
authority to control and regulate the broadcast media.
● Cable Televsion Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 which was confined to regulation
of cable operators and did not extend to regulation of telecasting rights.
● 1997 – but he The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 only
notified in 1997. The Broadcast Bill was introduced.

LIC v. Manu Bhai

1st Appeal Respondent wrote academic paper criticising LIC schemes - got published. Person
from LIC wrote counter article - published in The Hindu. LIC has in house magazine -
counter article was published here. Respondent had written an rejoinder to whatever LIC had
put and wanted to publish the same in the LIC magazine. LIC refused to publish it.
Respondent said that this refusal is violative under his FR - Art 14 and 19. Court said that
LIC is State under Constitution. Denial of the request was unfair and unreasonable - no
grounds to deny publication. LIC is obligated to express the Respondents views to the public

2nd Appeal

Upholding the Right to Broadcast, SC held that: o About a documentary called "beyond
genocide' o About Bhopal gas tragedy

Did not want to broadcast because:-

● Outdated
● Cause commotion in the public

SC held, Doordarshan is a state control agency that depends on public funds was not entitled
to refuse the telecast of the film as under Art. 19 (2)

Hero Cup Case - Bengal Cricket Association v. MIB

the SC held that broadcasting is a means of communication and a medium of speech and
expression under Art 19(1). This case involved the rights of a cricket association to grant
telecast rights to an agency of its choice. It held that the right to entertain and to be
entertained in this case through the broadcasting media are an integral part of the freedom
under Art19(1)(a). The court also said TV is an essential means of communication. The court
went onto hold that since the broadcasting media depended on the use of air waves, a
common property resource, the right of the telecaster was a limited right. The available
spectrum of air waves limits free access. Govt could legitimately impose restrictions on
broadcasters based on the availability of air waves in addition to the grounds available under
article 19(2). This limitation was not applicable to the viewer whose right to informed,
educated and entertained were paramount.

Cable Television Networks Act, 1995

Objective

● regulate content and the operation of link systems

● lay down responsibilities of cable operators in broadcasting the content
● protecting the subscribers from anti-national broadcast Section 4
● Satellite TV station managers are required to register under this act in order to run
digital telecom enterprises

Section 5 - lays down procedure for registration Content Regulation

● The Cable Act brought into force, a programme code and an advertising code
 ● The Programme Code prescribes that no programme should be carried in the cable
service which contravenes the provisions of the Cinematograph Act
● Advertisement Code - Consumer Protection Act

Section 16, 17, 18 - Penalties under the Act

CONTENT REGULATION ON SOCIAL

MEDIA AND OTT PLATFORMS
Earlier position - IPC, IT Act, art 19, POCSO

Current scenario
Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code - guidelines for OTT platforms

● self categorize the content under 5 heads- U -universal, U/A-7 years, 13 years, and 16
years A - adult
● parental lock on OTT platforms
● they have to follow Norms of Journalistic Conduct under Press Council of India and
Program Code
● Grievance Redressal Mechanism
o 3 level system
o appointment of redressal officer based in India. grievance has to be addressed
in 15 days
o additional self-regulatory body of publishers.

Regulation of content on social media

IT Act

it defines what an intermediary is and prescribes rules for them to follow

Intermediary guidelines 2021

● categorisation of social media intermediaries based on number of users.

● intermediaries have to follow due diligence. - S.79 of IT Act provides safe harbour
provisions
● grievance redressal mechanism is mandatory. An officer has to be appointed.
Complaint acknowledged in 24 hours and resolved in 15 days.
● SSMI primarily of messaging nature shall enable identification of the first originator
of the information. on the basis of reasonable restriction
● Govt can direct the intermediary to not publish or host any information