'Have To Keep In Mind Freedom Of Speech' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL For Central Govt Authority To Regulate Media

The Supreme Court recently underlined the significance of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while dismissing a PIL which sought a direction to the Government of India to constitute a "Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India" to regulate media.

The petition filed in 2020 by Reepak Kansal in the backdrop of the coverage of Sushant Singh Rajput case had sought various directions "to restrict assassination of dignity of an individual by broadcasting channels in the name of freedom of press".  The petitioner also sought directions to restrict media trial interfering with the administration of justice. Another relief which was sought in the petition was direction "to stop the misuse of airwaves by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of media, press and journalism".

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the prayers sought in the petition are "too wide".

"Firstly, we must note here that the prayers are too wide. Secondly, we have to also keep in mind the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression", the bench observed in the order passed on August 8.

The bench further noted that the affidavits filed by the News Broadcasters Association and the News Broadcasters Standards Authority revealed that a committee is in existence to deal with the grievances related to media broadcast. The committee is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and has members from the civil society.

"Moreover, this Court is dealing with hate speeches/news items in separate petitions", the Court further noted while declining interference under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before appropriate authorities to ventilate his greivances.

Along with Kansal's petition, the Court also considered another PIL filed by film maker Neelesh Navlakha seeking the constitution of an independent "media tribunal". The said petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court. Advocate Shashwat Anand and Advocate Rajesh Inamdar represented Navlkaha.

Also Read - 'Penalties Against TV Channels Must Be Proportionate To Profits; ₹ 1 Lakh Fine Ineffective' : Supreme Court To NBDA

Case title: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645 

Click Here To Read/Download Order