On June 17, 2021, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has, in a major policy milestone, amended the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. The new amendment offers a statutory mechanism for redressal of complaints relating to content broadcast by television channels. Self-regulatory bodies of broadcasters will now be formally recognised as regulators of digital media content on registering with the central government. This is significant as it paves the way for a formal institutional system for addressing grievances while placing accountability on broadcasters and their self-regulating bodies.
How To Ensure Proper Self-regulation?
Three basic principles should guide any initiative on the self-regulation of content. Following these is essential if the government and every other stakeholder, common citizens especially, wish to put in place an effective mechanism. The foremost principle is to have a pragmatic balance between creative freedom and a reasonable standard of commonly accepted decency and sensitivity in content. The second principle is to recognise that self-regulation inevitably shall become an outcome of compromise and will invariably be less than perfect. In all likelihood, the mechanisms of such regulation are bound to evolve and improve over time. The third principle will be to give due (neither excessive nor unreasonable) importance to business interests and create a mechanism that will not stifle the growth of the sector. The industry cannot and will not forgo its bread and butter and stand united in opposition to any moves that may appear or suggest to impede or slow down a reasonable prospect of growth, notwithstanding the might of the state and its attendant clout and authority.
The key to a successful way forward on media self-regulation is to create systems and institutions that serve the long term interest and growth of the industry, a key requirement necessarily of which, has to be a harmoniously dignified equation with the state. The seeds that can allow the initiation and healthy evolution of such an institutional framework consist of transparency, fairness and avowed uncompromised adherence to openness, logic and objectivity. Institutions involved in carrying out content regulation must, without the slightest hesitation, pick the best of people to devise and implement the system so set up. The temptation to find yes men must be scrupulously eschewed and firewalled in the institutional design itself, lest it becomes a death knell for this incipient initiative. The basic qualifications for those who manage self-regulation should include their sound understanding of the broadcasting sector, genuine belief in freedom of expression and creativity; and a high degree of sensitivity to the sentiments of the common man. Such institutions will command credibility, ensure sustainability even if they occasionally seem a little inconvenient. Any teething troubles that may ensue will be transient and may not endure.
Has June 17 changed the future of Content Regulation?
MIB was prompt to flesh out the intent of its June 17 notification and has laid down the constitution of a complaint redressal mechanism. It will cover the content on traditional broadcasting mediums like TV and also internet-streamed content commonly referred to as OTT. The government has also recognised and notified BCCC as the first statutory self-regulatory body.
The complaint redressal mechanism is structured in three tiers. The first tier comprises the content broadcasters, namely the channels (or platforms in case of OTT content); the second tier, industry regulators like BCCC; and the last tier rests with the government. MIB, thus, retains the authority to intervene if the first two tiers fail to satisfy the complainant. Administratively, MIB becomes the nodal ministry to address content complaints even with regard to the content on OTT platforms, though other issues shall continue to be addressed by the Ministry of IT.
A potentially sticky issue arising out of this complaint redressal system is that the government retains the position of final arbiter of disputes. Most broadcasters may not see this as an insurmountable impediment, but some, particularly news broadcasters, may take umbrage to the idea of government bureaucrats sitting in judgment over decisions taken by bodies headed by eminent retired Supreme Court Judges or retired Chief Justices of High Courts.
Objectively examined, this opposition does not carry strong conviction. Addressing a content complaint is not a process of technical adjudication and does not involve any complex interpretation of the law. It is merely to ensure that the elaborately laid guidelines are followed in letter and spirit, in consonance with a reasonable understanding of the decency and propriety of a common viewer. And when it comes to being endowed with sound common sense, it may not be fair to argue that judges command a privileged position. In fact, common sense could be uniformly common among judges, women and men of media, academicians, civil servants and politicians and the like. This reservation, therefore, seems more by way of a reactive resentment than meritorious reasoning.
Notwithstanding its justification, MIB may be well advised to constitute the third tier in a manner that conveys credibility, independence and fairness. MIB must scrupulously shun the temptation to make bureaucrats sit in judgment over the findings of industry regulators. It must entrust this task to persons of eminence, fierce independence; and deep and abiding conviction for protection of fundamental rights of citizens. They also must possess a sense of creative balance. Restricting the scope of the last appeal is another aspect that must be examined carefully so as to filter the cases coming before it to make disposals expeditious and allowing only instances of real substance to come before it. It is notable that seeking constitutional remedies such as safeguarding freedom of expression before the Apex Court is always available to complainants or channels.
By any account, the government has acted decisively on a longstanding thorny issue and deserves credit and compliments. The notified arrangement is by far the least problematic solution and if appreciated within the overall context of how issues related to the treatment of media tend to get sensationalised disproportionately, it may turn out to be a welcome initiative.
Conclusion
The unprecedented developments of the June 17 amendment and MIB notifications are progressive and path-breaking initiatives and deserve to be appreciated as such. However, turning it into reality demands foresight, sensitivity, prudence and sagacity of people who will be remembered by posterity as men and women of wisdom, independence and conviction, who gave India one of the finest and healthiest institutions of the broadcasting and digital sector. A great deal of this responsibility rests with the industry leaders, who have to unshackle themselves from the commercial compulsions of growth and contextualise and guide their decisions by a vision that envisages a unique and enviable ecosystem marked by transparency, objectivity, fairness, sensitivity and efficiency. They may as well be ushering in the golden era of Indian broadcasting.
