ITV

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Mumbai Police violated Supreme Court guidelines in Arnab Goswami’s arrest, says AIBA

    Mumbai Police violated Supreme Court guidelines in Arnab Goswami’s arrest, says AIBA

    NEW DELHI: The arrest of Republic TV’s editor in chief Arnab Goswami has evoked a response from multiple sections of the industry.

    Senior bureaucrats and news federations have condemned the arrest and called upon the chief minister of Maharashtra to conduct a free and fair investigation in the matter without exercising the authority of the government on media.

    In the latest development, All India Bar Association (AIBA) has condemned the arrest of noted journalist Arnab Goswami by Mumbai Police as it has violated the landmark guidelines to protect the rights of arrestee as enumerated in judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610).  

    In a letter to the governor of Maharashtra, AIBA chairman Adish C Aggarwala, senior advocate, appealed for immediate release of the journalist as it is blatant misuse of power by Maharashtra Govt. against Republic TV and Arnab Goswami. The illegal arrest is an attack on individual freedom and the fourth pillar of democracy. 

    The following guidelines of
    honourable Supreme Court in the judgment passed in D. K. Basu v. state of
    West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610), have been violated by Mumbai Police in
    the matter of arrest of Arnab Goswami 

    Duties of Police Making
    Arrest and Handling Interrogation: All Police personnel should wear name tags clearly indicating their name and designation.

    Police must enter the complete details of police officials conducting interrogation in a register.

    Arrest Memo: The police officer making
    an arrest has to prepare an arrest memo that records details of the
    arrest. The arrest memo must contain:

    a. The signature of at least one witness, who can be a relative of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality where the arrest is made. 

    b. The time, date, and place
    of the arrest. The arrested person should sign the arrest memo after it is
    properly prepared.  

    Inspection Memo: If the arrested person requests it, the arresting officer must record any minor/major injuries on his/her body in an inspection memo. The memorandum should be signed by the arrested person and the arresting officer. A copy of the Memo  must be given to the arrested person.

    Information About the Arrest & Detention: The arrested person has the right that his/her relative/friend is informed about the arrest. The police must contact and inform the relative/friend of the time and place of arrest, and the exact location where the arrested person is detained, at the earliest. If the relative / friend is in a different district / city, the concerned police station should be informed by telegraph within 8-12 hours of the arrest and then convey the  information to the relative / friend. The information of the arrest should also be sent through the district legal aid committee.

    Right to a Lawyer: The arrested person has the right to meet and consult a  lawyer during his/her interrogation. The police cannot deny this.  

    Illaqa Magistrate: The Police must send one copy of all documents, relating to the arrest (including the Arrest and Inspection Memos) to the Illaqa Magistrate for his/her records.

    Police Control Room: Police Control Rooms should be set up in all district and state headquarters. The arresting officer has the duty to inform the control room about the place of detention of the arrested person. This has to be done in all arrests.This information must be sent to the control room within 12 hours of the arrest. This information must be displayed clearly on the notice board of the Control Room. Duties of Police making arrest and handling interrogation: 

    These directions should be mandatorily followed. Refusal to do so results in the initiation of contempt of Court proceedings.

    Departmental action should be initiated against police officials who have violated above safeguards guaranteed to the citizens of the country. 

  • SC seeks Centre’s response on regulating OTT platforms

    SC seeks Centre’s response on regulating OTT platforms

    KOLKATA: It seems that when it comes to self-regulation, OTTs have a tough long road ahead, as the supreme court has sought the centre's response on a public interest litigation (PIL) for regulating these platforms by an autonomous body.

    According to a PTI report, a bench of the apex court comprising chief justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian has issued notices to the central government, the ministry o information and broadcasting (MIB) and internet and mobile association of India (IAMAI) on the possibility of setting up a proper body for monitoring and management of content across OTT and digital media platforms.

    The plea was filed by advocates Shashank Shekhar Jha and Apurva Arhatia. The petitioners have requested the court to order the government to constitute an autonomous body to monitor and regulate online video content. The petition added that the board should be headed by an IAS officer and have members from various fields.

     “With cinema theatres unlikely to open anytime soon in the country, OTT/Streaming and different digital media platforms have surely given a way out for the filmmakers and artists to release their content without being worried about getting clearance certificates for their films and series from the censor board,” the plea stated.

    The PIL has claimed that lack of legislation governing those platforms is turning out to be more prominent with several incidents.    

     According to the petitioners: “The government is facing heat to fill this lacuna with regulations from the public and the Judiciary; still the relevant government departments have not done anything significant to regularise these OTT/Streaming Platforms.”

    None of the OTT/streaming platforms including Netflix, Amazon Prime, Zee5, and Disney+Hotstar have signed the self-regulation provided by MIB since February 2020, the plea said.

    However, the government recently stated it is not under the process of framing laws for these platforms. It added that the matter may be looked into afresh when more clarity emerges in international jurisdictions.

  • NBF forms separate regulatory body PNBSO to oversee fair reporting

    NBF forms separate regulatory body PNBSO to oversee fair reporting

    NEW DELHI: With the TV news industry finding itself in hot water over the last few weeks, the News Broadcasters Federation (NBF), an association of over 20 organisations and multiple channels, has set up a self-regulatory body named Professional News Broadcasting Standards Organisation (PNBSO).

    The self-regulatory organization will oversee fair news reporting in its member companies. It aims to bring in self-regulation of high standards and international repute. The key mission of the organisation is to support those who feel wronged by the press, to uphold the highest professional standards in the broadcast, and to determine whether standards have been breached and provide redress if so.

    The former chief justice of India Jagdish Singh Khehar has been appointed the first chairman of the PNBSO.

    The self-regulatory organisation comprises nine members: one chairman appointed from a pool of retired judges from the Supreme Court of India, four editorial members and four eminent citizens. The NBF-PNBSO will meet every three months to review any complaints filed against member companies.

    The panel is currently led by former chief justice Khehar, along with RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi and media veteran Chintamani Rao. The names of the other panellists will be announced soon.

    Members of NBF, who are also a signatory to NBF-PNBSO, abide by the broad framework on editorial guidelines and must refrain from making–

    ·   Criticism of friendly countries

    ·   Attack on religion or communities.

    ·   Anything obscene or defamatory.

    ·   Incitement to violence or anything against maintenance of law and order.

    ·   Anything amounting to contempt of court.

    ·   Aspersion against the integrity of the president, governors, and the judiciary.

    ·   Attack on a political party by name.

    ·   Hostile criticism of any state or the centre.

    ·   Anything showing disrespect to the constitution or advocating change in the constitution by violent means (but advocating changes in a constitutional way should not be debarred).

    The PNBSO is determined to uphold the standards of broadcast news and will ensure that all the member channels follow the news broadcasting code of conduct. It will work closely with all stakeholders to prevent the menace of fake news.

    The organisation has also drafted a complaint mechanism. In case of any violation, the panel will issue a warning including a channel to run an apology scroll specifying the date and time – an action to be complied with and reported back to NBF-PNBSO within seven days of the order. Any repeat or serious violations would attract a financial penalty up to Rs 10 lakh. A repeat violation by the channel/anchor would be penalized with a warning to run an apology scroll for two days with a specific date and time; removing the anchor up to 3 months and/or a financial penalty up to Rs 5 lakh.

    The code is based on the UK based Impress and International Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Society of Professional Journalism of the USA.

    It is worth noting that the current president of the NBF’s governing board, Arnab Goswami, has been named in a lawsuit against "irresponsible reporting by certain media houses" filed by leading Bollywood producers and filmmakers. Goswami’s channel Republic TV is also being probed by the Mumbai police in an alleged TV manipulation racket.

    Yesterday, the Bombay high court questioned the union government why there should not be a statutory body to regulate the content broadcast through news channels.

    The court sought to know why the electronic media should have an "open hand" over its coverage. It was hearing a bunch of public interest litigations (PILs) seeking that the press, particularly TV news channels, be directed to exercise restraint in their reportage of actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case and the related investigation by police and CBI.

  • The TRP fudging saga continues

    The TRP fudging saga continues

    NEW DELHI: The Mumbai police’s investigation into the alleged TRP manipulation fracas gathered pace over the weekend. If one were to stand outside the central police headquarters in Mumbai, it would have looked like a roll call of media hotshots was being taken.  

    Amongst those to go in were Republic TV CEO Vikas Khanchandani who was interrogated for more than nine hours about the network’s involvement, something the founder Arnab Goswami has vehemently denied, stating that it was TV Today which was indulging in TRP rigging. India Today has denied any such wrongdoing.

    The police had sent summons to Republic Bharat COO Harsh Bhandari;  COO- international revenue & distribution Priya Mukherjee; senior distribution executive Ghanshyam Singh, the CEO of Hansa Research Group Praveen Nijhara and another employee.  Madison founder Sam Balsara, IPG Mediabrands CEO Shashi Sinha also spent a large part of the day being questioned by the Mumbai police.

    Republic TV CFO Shiva Subramaniyam Sundaram, who had also been ordered to appear before the cops, declined, stating that he would available for questioning only after 14-15 October. He also said that he had requested the law enforcers to halt the probe until the company’s writ petition against the police’s actions is heard by the Supreme Court.

    Read more news on TRP Scandal

    Even as this piece is being written, six teams from the Mumbai police crime branch were further investigating if the malpractice of TRP rigging was being resorted in six states. Republic TV issued a press release stating that the Mumbai police repeatedly tried to find out from its executives how the network managed to get their hands on the Hansa Research filed complaint. It said it would not reveal its sources, citing editorial privilege.

    The Mumbai police stepped in to investigate the alleged scam after BARC’s people meter management vendor Hansa Research complained to it that the viewership sample had been compromised. Mumbai police chief Param Bir Singh then held a press conference, alleging that executives of three channels – Box Cinema TV, Fakt Marathi and Republic TV – gave financial inducements to members of BARC’s viewership panel to watch their shows, thus inflating their viewerships.

    Senior professionals, from the first two, were arrested and are cooling their heels behind bars since the allegations were hurled on 9 October.

    Goswami has all along being insisting that Republic TV’s name was not even there in the Hansa complaint, it was TV Today which was mentioned several times, he said. He has  also alleged that the Mumbai police chief is attacking his network at the insistence of the Maharashtra government for continuing to investigate the Sushant Singh Rajput “murder” and several other acts of negligence by it and the city’s law enforcers.

    Over the weekend, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor also mentioned that it will be taking up the issue. It has asked representatives of the News Broadcasters Association, Press Council of India and Prasar Bharati to depose on the subject of 'ethical standards in media coverage.’

    Earlier during the week, Mumbai Police had arrested four people including Bompalli Rao Mistry, the alleged mastermind behind the scandal. Mistry will remain in the police custody until 13 October.

  • Delhi govt slapped with CCRGA notice over political messaging

    Delhi govt slapped with CCRGA notice over political messaging

    NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court-mandated committee on content regulation in government advertising (CCRGA)  issued a notice to the government in Delhi (AAP) over an advertisement which had appeared last week. The committee had taken sou-moto cognisance of concerns raised on social media that its purpose was only "political messaging." Several questions has been raised on the necessity of issuing the advertisement in Mumbai newspapers. 

    The one-page advertisement was published by the department of education and directorate of information & publicity, government of NCT of Delhi.

    It was heavily criticised on social media with many claiming that it was just political messaging and there was no point in spending huge sums of money to publish the ad in other states.

    "Historic! Delhi government schools class 12 results — 98 per cent," said the Delhi government advertisement, which was published in several newspapers on 16 July.

    CCRGA demanded a reply to various issues, like cost to the exchequer, within 60 days upon receiving the notice.

    "The committee had taken suo-motu cognisance of the points raised in the social media on the Delhi government advertisement — questions had been raised on the necessity of the Delhi government to issue advertisements in Mumbai newspapers and had pointed that the purpose of the ad was only for political messaging," a statement issued by the ministry of information and broadcasting said.

    "The one-page advertisement was published by the department of education and directorate of information and publicity, government of NCT of Delhi," the statement said.

    The committee is allowed to address complaints from the general public on violation of the supreme court guidelines and make suitable recommendations, the statement said.

    The committee can also take suo-motu cognisance of any violation or deviation of the supreme court guidelines and recommend corrective actions, it added.

    Presently the CCRGA is chaired by Om Prakash Rawat, former chief election commissioner of India, and its members are Ramesh Narayan of Asian Federation of Advertising Associations and Past President, IAA and Ashok Kumar Tandon, Member, Prasar Bharati board.

  • Supreme Court refuses transfer of FIRs against Arnab Goswami to CBI

    Supreme Court refuses transfer of FIRs against Arnab Goswami to CBI

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the FIRs filed against Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami. They are currently being investigation by the Mumbai Police. The apex court also refused to quash the FIR lodged against him in connection with his statements made recently on the Palghar mob-lynching case.

    The SC bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, however, quashed the multiple FIRs lodged against Goswami in several states, which accused him of using hate speech, derogatory language against Congress president Sonia Gandhi.

    On 11 May the top court had reserved its verdict on two of his petitions. They also directed that no coercive action should be taken against Goswami in the fresh FIR lodged by the Mumbai Police.

    Earlier, Goswami had claimed in the court that he was interrogated by Mumbai Police for more than 12 hours concerning an FIR on alleged defamatory statements. He claimed that one of the two investigating officers who were probing the case has tested positive for Covid2019.

    Also, the Maharashtra government had moved the apex court alleging that Goswami has been misusing protection granted by the top court.

    During the hearing, senior advocate Harish Salve, who is representing Goswami, had argued that this case is all about a certain political party targeting a journalist. He mentioned that the complainants are members of one particular party.

    Meanwhile, Goswami's interim protection from arrest has been extended for another three weeks. During this time period Goswami can seek an appropriate remedy.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Supreme Court reserves order on Arnab Goswami’s plea to quash FIR

    Supreme Court reserves order on Arnab Goswami’s plea to quash FIR

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has reserved the orders on the writ petition filed by Republic TV managing director and editor in chief Arnab Goswami for quashing a FIR filed against him for allegedly disturbing communal harmony over the gathering of a large number of migrants in Bandra in Mumbai.

    A bench, comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, provided interim protection to Arnab from coercive action in the FIR till the judgement is delivered. The protection from arrest granted to Arnab on 24 April shall continue to remain in operation until the apex court delivers the judgement in the next two days.

    Arnab had sought the transfer of the case to the CBI, expressing doubts over the impartiality of the Mumbai police. His lawyer argued that the probe by the Mumbai police has a "chilling effect" on press freedom.

    “What is the point we are arguing for? They are trying to stifle an unpleasant voice. The real purpose is to teach a journalist a lesson, by asking very silly questions during the investigation in the case… The whole thing was to teach me (Arnab) and my profession a lesson. However, I made it clear that we did our duty, nothing wrong in that,” Adv Harish Salve, appearing for Arnab Goswami, argued.

    The FIR was filed under various sections of the IPC, which include for promoting enmity between different groups, outraging religious feelings of any class of citizens, etc.

    Earlier, the apex court had given Arnab two week’s protection from arrest in the case of a series of FIRs filed against him in various courts in the country. 

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

  • Supreme Court notice on PIL against media companies for sacking employees

    Supreme Court notice on PIL against media companies for sacking employees

    MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice on a petition filed against multiple media organisations, which have retrenched, laid off or forced their employees to take a pay cut on the back of the nation-wide lockdown to check on the spread of novel Covid-2019 pandemic.

    A bench comprising justices NV Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and BR Gavai has sought responses from the central government, the India Newspapers Society and the News Broadcasters Association while expressing concern over the alleged termination of the employees of media organisations.

    “Some serious issues have been raised and it requires a hearing, moreover, the petitioners have not approached any other authority for the same reliefs,” observed the apex court. “Other unions also say the same thing, the question is, if the business does not start, how long will people sustain?”

    The petition filed by National Alliance Of Journalists, Delhi Union Of Journalists, and BrihanMumbai Union Of Journalists has accused media organisations of inhuman and illegal treatment being meted out by employers to their employees and workers in the media sector.

    The petition reads: “The employers (news channels, print media including news websites and digital news platforms) have issued termination notices, imposing steep wage cuts unilaterally, sending workers and employees on indefinite unpaid leave, and so on, taking the excuse of the nation-wide lockdown imposed in light of the spread of Covid-2019.”  

    The petition signed by NAJ president SK Pande, BUJ general-secretary Indra Kumar Jain, and DUJ general secretary Sujata Madhok has sought the suspension of all orders of termination, salary cuts or resignations asked from employees during the period of the lockdown.

    “Despite the appeals made by the prime minister of India and advisories issued by the government of India to not terminate services or reduce employees’ wages, several employers/establishments in the newspaper and media sector have taken unilateral knee-jerk decisions to terminate services, reduce wages and also send employees on forced indefinite unpaid leave,” reads the petition.

    The petitioners have also listed some instances — The Indian Express asking staff to take salary cuts, News Nation terminating services of 16 employees of its English digital team, The Times of India sacking its entire Sunday magazine team, The Quint asking 45 members of its team to go on leave without pay and Bloomberg Quint indicating steep salary cuts for the month of April.

    The central government has imposed a nation-wide lockdown till 3 May to check on the rising cases of the Covid-2019 virus while giving an exception to the essential service category. Media has also been added under the essential service category.

  • Delhi High Court to hear plea against Netflix web series ‘Hasmukh’

    Delhi High Court to hear plea against Netflix web series ‘Hasmukh’

    MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court on Monday will hear a plea by a lawyer seeking to restrain Netflix from streaming a web series. The lawyer community has taken umbrage at the Netflix web series Hasmukh, because it “maligns their image and reputation.”

    The plea, moved by Supreme Court lawyer Ashutosh Dubey, points out that in episode 4 of the web series, lawyers have been branded as “thieves, scoundrels, goons and rapists.”

    The lawyer wants deletion of the contents from the series. He has also sought court directions to the producers, directors and writer of the series to tender an unconditional apology for “maligning the image of the lawyers' community.”

    "Statements (in the series) are highly disparaging, defamatory and bring disrepute to the profession of law, and lawyers and advocates in the eyes of the general public," said Dubey.

    While seeking a permanent injunction on airing the series, the advocate has maintained in his suit that the said remarks have “caused utmost damage to the legal profession and impugned the image of lawyers in the eyes of millions of viewers/subscribers, who visit the streaming website where the show is being streamed." 

  • Brand Arnab unhurt by controversies

    Brand Arnab unhurt by controversies

    MUMBAI: Arnab Goswami has been hogging the limelight from the beginning of this week, first with his impromptu resignation from the Editors Guild of India during a live television debate show, and now for the multiple FIRs filed against him for making derogatory comment against a political personality during a live debate. The Supreme Court has given him three weeks’ protection from arrest.

    Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment

    Goswami, a founding member and editor-in-chief of the Republic Media Network, has hogged the limelight even as the country is racked by the COVID-19 crisis. But will these recent controversies affect the brand image of Goswami and his channel? Certainly not! On the other, they will only help Republic TV gain some traction, point out media agencies and brand experts.

    “The controversy will have little effect on viewership or sponsorship; in fact, it might attract more viewers,” says FCB Ulka executive creative director Anindya Banerjee. “As a brand, Republic TV has managed to stay in the news in more ways than one. The people, who watch it, know it, and love it.”

    Banerjee further says: “The brands which are associated with the channel are aware of it and love the fact that consumers engage with the news channel.”

    Echoing the same view, Havas Media, India and Southeast Asia chief executive officer Anita Nayyar says: “Logically, any positive controversy lends positivity and a negative one lends negativity. And, the controversy garners a lot of eyeballs and in any case brands ride on it, if deemed fit.”

    The apex court has ruled in favour of Goswami, granting protection from arrest in the case of FIRs filed against him in various states. A source close to the Republic TV says: “This case will probably set a benchmark and precedent of any such future cases. Here, multiple FIRs were filed. But tools like this cannot be used in any negative manner. It’s a big win for the media company.”

    Republic TV has been the most-watched news channel in India for the straight fifteenth week so far this year, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) of India. And, while dwindling ad revenues have affected the majority of television channels due to the COVID-19 crisis, the Republic is unaffected by any such revenue losses, according to a top official of the network.

    Says DigitalKites senior vice-president Amit Lall: “Brands relate to Arnab Goswami because of his success story as an individual. The moment it comes to brands, it always picks and chooses people who are safe and try to be neutral. They don’t like people, who are volatile or impromptu. Brands will continue to put money into it (Republic TV), purely because it has viewership. And, don’t think controversies like such would impact the advertising sales of the network,” says Lall.

    Comniscient Group chief executive officer N Chandramouli says: “Arnab Goswami understands its audience well and have managed to create an audience clutter which nobody has. People believe in his perspective and take him seriously, which helps him get viewership and TRPs for his news channels. He is driven by his audience; we think he has an agenda but his audience has an agenda. Republic TV is completely audience-driven and believes he delivers for his consumers.”

    Arnab Goswami rose to become one of the prominent journalists during his 10-year stint at Times Network where he was an editor-in-chief and primetime anchor of Times Now, which went on to become one of the most-watched news channels then under his editorship. The channel had eventually started getting traction due to his face value. In 2016, Goswami started his own news network, Republic Media, and holds a controlling stake in the company with over 80 per cent of shares.