Media Moot Memorial Final

(1)

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

WRIT

WRIT PETITION PETITION NO. NO. ________/2009________/2009

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE MATTER OF ATV

ATV AND AND LTV………LTV……….PETITIONERS…….PETITIONERS VERSUS

VERSUS GOVT.

GOVT. OF OF INDIA………INDIA……….RESPONDENT…….RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE INDIA AND HIS

OF THE INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGESCOMPANION JUDGES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

(2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………ABBREVIATIONS ……….3……….3 INDEX

INDEX OF OF AUTHORITIES………AUTHORITIES………4………4 STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF OF JURISDICTION………JURISDICTION……….7……….7 STATEMENT OF

STATEMENT OF FACTS ………FACTS ………8………8 STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF OF ISSUES…………ISSUES………9………9 SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF OF ARGUMENTS………ARGUMENTS………..10………..10 ARGUMENTS………

ARGUMENTS………..11………..11 PRAYER………

(3)

ABBREVATIONS

•

• AIR AIR All All India India Reporter Reporter

•

• Art Art ArticleArticle

•

• Co Co CompanyCompany

•

• Deptt Deptt DepartmentDepartment

•

• Ed. Ed. EditionEdition

•

• P. P. PagePage

•

• Pvt. Pvt. PrivatePrivate

•

• SC SC Supreme CourtSupreme Court

•

• SCC SCC Supreme CourtSupreme Court

Cases Cases

•

• SCR SCR Supreme CourtSupreme Court

Reporters Reporters

•

• Sec Sec SectionSection

•

(4)

•

• T.N. T.N. Tamil Tamil NaduNadu

•

• v. v. VersusVersus

•

• Vol. Vol. VolumeVolume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

•

• Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr.Vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. and Ors 2008 Anr.Vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. and Ors 2008 (8)(8) SCALE 106

SCALE 106

•

• L.I.C. v. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171L.I.C. v. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171 •

• Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872: (1986) 1 SCC 1986 SC 872: (1986) 1 SCC 133.133. •

• Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (UOI) and Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (UOI) and OrsOrs11 (2007) 1 SCC 143(2007) 1 SCC 143 •

• Prabha v. Union of India, AIR Prabha v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6: (1982) 1 SCC 1982 SC 6: (1982) 1 SCC 1: 1982 SCC (Cri) 41.1: 1982 SCC (Cri) 41. •

• Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs.Smt. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720Vs.Smt. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720

1 1

(5)

•

• Arun Kumar and Ors.vs. Union of India Arun Kumar and Ors.vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193(UOI) and Ors (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193

•

• Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen Associations & Confederation Of Ex-Servicemen Associations & Ors. vs Union Of Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors,India & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 399

(2006) 8 SCC 399

•

• S.S.K. Niyami v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 2128: (1990) 4 SCC 516.S.S.K. Niyami v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 2128: (1990) 4 SCC 516. •

• Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan and Ors. v. AnandDirector General, Directorate General of Doordarshan and Ors. v. Anand Patwardhan and Anr. (C.A. No. 613 of 2005)

Patwardhan and Anr. (C.A. No. 613 of 2005)

•

• Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803)Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803) •

• P.Venugopal vs. Union of P.Venugopal vs. Union of India India (2008) 5 SCC (2008) 5 SCC 11 •

• Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 150Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 150

Books

•

• Bakshi P.M, “The Constitution of India”, 7Bakshi P.M, “The Constitution of India”, 7thth edition, 2006, Univeral Law Publishingedition, 2006, Univeral Law Publishing

Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

•

• BaBakskshihi, , RaRanbnbirir, , A.A.LaLaxmxmininatath, h, “C“Cononststititututioionanal l LaLaw”w”, , 20200606, , LeLexixis s NeNexixiss

Butterworths, New Delhi. Butterworths, New Delhi.

•

• BlaBlack, ck, HenHenry ry CamCampbepbell, ll, “Bl“Blackack’s ’s Law Law DicDictittitionionaryary”, ”, 66thth edieditiotion, n, 19901990, , WesWestt

Publishing Company, Minnesota. Publishing Company, Minnesota.

•

• DeDevividadas, s, T.T., , MaMallllarar, , V.V.S. S. anand d ViVijajaykykumumarar, , V.V., , CaCaseses s anand d MaMateteririalals s onon

Constitutional Law-I: Centre State Relations and Federalism, 1998, National Law Constitutional Law-I: Centre State Relations and Federalism, 1998, National Law School Institute University, Bangalore.

(6)

•

• Jain, M.P., ‘Indian ConstitutJain, M.P., ‘Indian Constitutional Law’, ional Law’, 55thth edition, 2003, Wadhwa & Company,edition, 2003, Wadhwa & Company,

Nagpur. Nagpur.

•

• Pandey, J.N, “Constitutional Law of India”, 44Pandey, J.N, “Constitutional Law of India”, 44thth ed., 2007, Central Law Agency,ed., 2007, Central Law Agency,

Allahabad. Allahabad.

Statutes

1.

1. CaCablble e TeTelelevivisision on NeNetwtwororkiking ng (R(Regegululatatioion) n) AcAct, t, 19199595

2.

2. ThThe e CaCablble e TTeleleveviisision on NeNettwowork rk RuRuleless, , 19199494

3

3.. IInnddiiaan n TTeelleeggrraapph h AAcctt, , 11888855

4

4.. TThhe Ce Coonnssttiittuuttiioon on of f IInnddiiaa, 1, 1995500..

Websites

1

1.. wwwwww..mmaannuuppaattrraa..ccoomm

2

(7)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Th

The e PePetitititiononerers s humhumblbly y susubmbmit it bebefofore re ththe e HoHon’n’blble e SuSuprprememe e CoCoururt t of of InIndidia, a, ththisis memorandum of the present case in the form of a writ petition under article 32 of the memorandum of the present case in the form of a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of India. It contains the grounds on which the arguments are based.

(8)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

1. ‘Ace’ Televi‘Ace’ Television Private Limited and sion Private Limited and ‘Lead‘Leading’ Televisiing’ Television on PriPrivate Limited are vate Limited are the twothe two production houses of the leading

(9)

2. During the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, both the channels did an extensive Live 2. During the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, both the channels did an extensive Live Covera

Coverage ge of the of the entirentire e terrterror attacks which or attacks which incluincluded the ded the discldisclosure of osure of vital informvital information of ation of the operations conducted by the

the operations conducted by the Indian Armed Forces.Indian Armed Forces.

3. This disclosure of information went in contravention to the instructions issued by the 3. This disclosure of information went in contravention to the instructions issued by the government of India, whereby the Live Media Coverage of the attack was banned.

government of India, whereby the Live Media Coverage of the attack was banned.

4.

4. SuSubsbseqequenuent t to to ththe e atattatack, ck, CaCablble e TeTelelevivisision on AcAct t wawas s paspassesed d whwhicich h wawas s apapplplieiedd retrospectively, in which Section (7) provided for the censorship and the restriction of any retrospectively, in which Section (7) provided for the censorship and the restriction of any information displayed in Public Interest and Security of State and Section (11) empowers information displayed in Public Interest and Security of State and Section (11) empowers Government of India to cancel the License of Broadcast and to impose fine if any order Government of India to cancel the License of Broadcast and to impose fine if any order issued under Section (7) is violated.

issued under Section (7) is violated.

5.Government of India through its special secretary served a show cause notice to the news 5.Government of India through its special secretary served a show cause notice to the news channels that their Broadcast Licences have been cancelled forthwith as they have leaked channels that their Broadcast Licences have been cancelled forthwith as they have leaked vital information of the operation, which was aga

vital information of the operation, which was aga inst the security of the state.inst the security of the state.

6. The Channels challenge the validity of the Act as it violated the provisions of the 6. The Channels challenge the validity of the Act as it violated the provisions of the Constitution, furthermore they challenged the show cause notice as well. The writ has been Constitution, furthermore they challenged the show cause notice as well. The writ has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the introduced Cable Television Act valid or not? 1. Whether the introduced Cable Television Act valid or not?

(10)

2. Whether the issued Show Cause notice holds some meanings or not? 2. Whether the issued Show Cause notice holds some meanings or not?

3. Whether the cancellation of the licenses and banning the Live Media Coverage of 3. Whether the cancellation of the licenses and banning the Live Media Coverage of Terrorist Attacks is a legally valid action or not?

Terrorist Attacks is a legally valid action or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.

(11)

1.1

1.1 Whether fundamental Whether fundamental rights, Arrights, Article 19(1) ticle 19(1) (a) are (a) are violated or violated or not?not? 1.2

1.2 Do Courts Do Courts have the have the power to power to declare an declare an Act of Act of the Legislaturthe Legislature to e to be invalibe invalid?d? 1.2.1 Invalidity of Cable Television Act

1.2.1 Invalidity of Cable Television Act

1.2.2 How and when should the power of the Court to declare the Statute 1.2.2 How and when should the power of the Court to declare the Statute

unconstitutional be excersiced? unconstitutional be excersiced? 1.2.3 Citizen’s Rights to Information 1.2.3 Citizen’s Rights to Information

1.2.4 Restriction on freedom of speech-Art 19(2)

1.2.4 Restriction on freedom of speech-Art 19(2) to (6)to (6)

2.

2. Whether the show Whether the show cause notice is cause notice is valid or not?valid or not?

2.1 Is the show cause notice applied in a right way? 2.1 Is the show cause notice applied in a right way?

3. Whether the cancellation of the licenses and banning the Live Media Coverage of 3. Whether the cancellation of the licenses and banning the Live Media Coverage of Terrorist Attacks is a legally valid action or not?

Terrorist Attacks is a legally valid action or not?

3.1 The test of rational nexus

3.1 The test of rational nexus is not proved.is not proved.

3.2 Legal validity of Ban imposed by the government on Live Media Coverage. 3.2 Legal validity of Ban imposed by the government on Live Media Coverage.

3.3 Legal Validity of section 7 in Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995 3.3 Legal Validity of section 7 in Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(12)

1. Whether the Cable Television Act is valid or

1. Whether the Cable Television Act is valid or not?

not?

1.1 Whether fundamental rights, Article 19(1) (a) ar

1.1 Whether fundamental rights, Article 19(1) (a) are violated or not?

e violated or not?

A law made by the Parliament can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two A law made by the Parliament can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two ground

grounds s alone: (1) alone: (1) lack of lack of legislegislativlative e competcompetence; and ence; and (2) violati(2) violation on of of fundamfundamental rightsental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision.

guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision.

Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.etc.

(1) All citizens shall have the (1) All citizens shall have the

right-(a) To freedom of speech and expression (a) To freedom of speech and expression22_;;

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press33 _{is not expressly mentioned in article 19}_{is not expressly mentioned in article 19}44 _{but has been held to flow}_{but has been held to flow}

from the general freedom of speech

from the general freedom of speech55 and expression guaranteed to all citizens. As judiciallyand expression guaranteed to all citizens. As judicially construed, this freedom now includes not merely the freedom to write and publish what the construed, this freedom now includes not merely the freedom to write and publish what the writer considers proper, but also the freedom to carry on the business so that information writer considers proper, but also the freedom to carry on the business so that information may be disseminated and excessive and prohibitive burden restricting circulation may be may be disseminated and excessive and prohibitive burden restricting circulation may be avoided.

avoided.

A citizen has a right to know about the activities of the State, the instrumentalities, the A citizen has a right to know about the activities of the State, the instrumentalities, the departments and the agencies of the State. The privilege of secrecy which existed in old departments and the agencies of the State. The privilege of secrecy which existed in old times, (namely) that the State is not bound to disclose the facts to the citizens or the State times, (namely) that the State is not bound to disclose the facts to the citizens or the State cannot be compelled by the citizens to disclose the facts, does not survive now to a great cannot be compelled by the citizens to disclose the facts, does not survive now to a great extent. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of freedom of right to know. The extent. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of freedom of right to know. The State can impose and should impose reasonable restrictions in the rights where it affects the State can impose and should impose reasonable restrictions in the rights where it affects the

2

2 _{L.I.C. v. Manubhai Shah}_{L.I.C. v. Manubhai Shah}_{, AIR 1993 SC 171}_{, AIR 1993 SC 171} 3

3 _{Express Newspape}_{Express Newspapers v. Union}_{rs v. Union of India}_{of India}_{, AIR 1986 SC 872: (1986) 1 SCC 133.}_{, AIR 1986 SC 872: (1986) 1 SCC 133.} 4

4 _{State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kailash Chand Mahajan and others}_{State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kailash Chand Mahajan and others}

5

(13)

national security or any other matter affecting the nation’s integrity. But the right is limited national security or any other matter affecting the nation’s integrity. But the right is limited and particularly in the matter of sanitation and other allied matters, every citizen has a right and particularly in the matter of sanitation and other allied matters, every citizen has a right to know how the State is functioning and why the State is withholding such information in to know how the State is functioning and why the State is withholding such information in such matters;

such matters;

In this case, it is a clearly known fact that The Ministry of Home, Government of India In this case, it is a clearly known fact that The Ministry of Home, Government of India through its special secretary has cancelled the license of the petitioner’s channel ‘ATV’. At through its special secretary has cancelled the license of the petitioner’s channel ‘ATV’. At the first look itself we can identify the unconstitutional implementation of the law by the the first look itself we can identify the unconstitutional implementation of the law by the government. It is know fact that in a democratic state like India it is necessary to have a government. It is know fact that in a democratic state like India it is necessary to have a strong and unbiased press to support the citizens of the country and critically analyze the strong and unbiased press to support the citizens of the country and critically analyze the policies taken by the government. The terror attacks in Mumbai were a black chapter in the policies taken by the government. The terror attacks in Mumbai were a black chapter in the history of India. It is also a national shame that our defence and police force couldn’t stop history of India. It is also a national shame that our defence and police force couldn’t stop anti-national forces from entering our territory and unleashing attacks against citizens of o anti-national forces from entering our territory and unleashing attacks against citizens of o ur ur country.

country.

In the case of Ajay Goswami v. Un

In the case of Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (UOI) and Orsion of India (UOI) and Ors66

Petitioner filed present petition requesting the Court to direct the authorities to strike a Petitioner filed present petition requesting the Court to direct the authorities to strike a balance between fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by press balance between fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by press and duty of government to protect minors from abuse, exploitation and harmful effects of and duty of government to protect minors from abuse, exploitation and harmful effects of such expression. Pictures which was in dispute had been published by Respondents with the such expression. Pictures which was in dispute had been published by Respondents with the intent to inform readers of the current entertainment news from around the world and India. intent to inform readers of the current entertainment news from around the world and India. An

Any y ststepeps s to to baban n pupublblisishihing ng of of cecertrtaiain n nenews ws pipiececes es or or pipictcturures es wowoululd d fefetttter er ththee independence of free press which is one of the hallmarks of our democratic setup. Petitioner independence of free press which is one of the hallmarks of our democratic setup. Petitioner failed to establish the need and requirement to curtail the freedom of speech and expression. failed to establish the need and requirement to curtail the freedom of speech and expression. Times of India and Hindustan Times are leading newspapers in Delhi having substantial Times of India and Hindustan Times are leading newspapers in Delhi having substantial sub

subscrscribeibers rs frofrom m all all secsectiotions. ns. TheThey y have have an an intinternernal al regregulaulatortory y sysystestem m to to ensensure ure nono obj

objectectionaionable ble photphotogrographs aphs or or a a matmatter ter getgets s pubpublislishedhed. . TheThey y werwere e conconsciscious ous of of thetheir ir responsibility towards children but at the same time it would be inappropriate to deprive the responsibility towards children but at the same time it would be inappropriate to deprive the adu

adult lt popupopulatlation ion of of the the ententertertainainmenment t whiwhich ch was well was well witwithin hin the the accaccepteptablable e levlevels els of of

6

(14)

decency on the ground that it may not be appropriate for the children. The Petition was decency on the ground that it may not be appropriate for the children. The Petition was dismissed.

dismissed.

In the case of Government

In the case of Governmentof Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs.Smt. P. Laxmi Deviof Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs.Smt. P. Laxmi Devi77_,,

Writ Petition was filed in praying for a declaration that Section 47A, Indian Stamp Act, Writ Petition was filed in praying for a declaration that Section 47A, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998, which requires a party to deposit 50 per cent 1899 as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998, which requires a party to deposit 50 per cent deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to Collector under Section 47A, deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to Collector under Section 47A, is unconstitutional. Hence, in the present appeal respondent contended that the provision is unconstitutional. Hence, in the present appeal respondent contended that the provision con

contaitained ned in in the the proprovisviso o to to SecSectiotion n 47A 47A is is arbarbitritrary ary and and unrunreaseasonaonable ble vioviolatlating ing thethe fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

In the case of Arun Kumar a

In the case of Arun Kumar and Ors.vs. Union of India (UOI) and Orsnd Ors.vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors88_,,

A question of formulating contributory scheme for ex-servicemen was involved who were A question of formulating contributory scheme for ex-servicemen was involved who were claim

claiming ing full full medicamedical l facilfacilityity.. The The GoveGovernmrnment ent of of IndIndia ia had had conconstistituttuted ed a a ComCommitmitteetee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan (Retd.) to look into the Report of the Pay Revision headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Mohan (Retd.) to look into the Report of the Pay Revision Com

Commimittettee e for for PubPublic lic SecSector tor ExeExecutcutiveives. s. The The ComCommitmittee tee consconsideidered red varvariouious s ississuesues in

inclclududining g isissusues es as as to to papay y scscalaleses, , peperqrquiuisisitetes s etetc.c., , of of ememplployoyeeees s of of PuPublblic ic SeSectctor or Undertakings. The various recommendations made by the Committee and submitted that Undertakings. The various recommendations made by the Committee and submitted that different treatment shown by the authorities to employees of Government and employees of different treatment shown by the authorities to employees of Government and employees of Public Sector Undertakings is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable being violative of Public Sector Undertakings is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, submitted that the benefits extended Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, submitted that the benefits extended to Government employees ought to have been extended to employees of Public Sector to Government employees ought to have been extended to employees of Public Sector Undertakings as well.

Undertakings as well.

In the

In the case of Confederatcase of Confederation of ion of Ex-SeEx-Servicervicemen Associatmen Associations & ions & Ors. vs Union Of Ors. vs Union Of India &India & Ors Ors99_,, 7 7 _{(2008) 4 SCC 720}_{(2008) 4 SCC 720} 8 8 _{(2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193}_{(2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193} 9 9 _{(2006) 8 SCC 399}_{(2006) 8 SCC 399}

(15)

The grievance of the petitioner is that though several attempts had been made by the The grievance of the petitioner is that though several attempts had been made by the Assoc

Associatiiations, the ons, the GovernmGovernment of ent of India had India had never taken the never taken the mattematter r serioseriously as usly as regarregards theds the medical services to be provided to ex-servicemen. Though they have a valuable right of full medical services to be provided to ex-servicemen. Though they have a valuable right of full and free medicare, which is a fundamental right, no concrete and effective steps had been and free medicare, which is a fundamental right, no concrete and effective steps had been taken by the respondents which constrained them to approach this Court by invoking taken by the respondents which constrained them to approach this Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution. According to them, keeping in view the services rendered by Article 32 of the Constitution. According to them, keeping in view the services rendered by ex-defence personnel and the diseases sustained by them, they are entitled to necessary ex-defence personnel and the diseases sustained by them, they are entitled to necessary medical facilities. It was also their case that free and full medical facilities is part and parcel medical facilities. It was also their case that free and full medical facilities is part and parcel of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution as also covered by of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution as also covered by Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In several cases, this Court has held that Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In several cases, this Court has held that such facilities must be provided to Government employees, past and present. According to such facilities must be provided to Government employees, past and present. According to the

the petpetitiitioneoner, r, sucsuch h facfacililitiities es are providare provided ed to to GoveGovernmrnment ent empemployloyees ees and and alsalso o to to ex- ex-servicemen. Refusal to extend similar medical benefits to

servicemen. Refusal to extend similar medical benefits to Ex-def

Ex-defence ence personpersonnel nel are are thus arbitrarthus arbitrary, y, discrdiscriminaiminatorytory, , unreasunreasonable and onable and violaviolative tive of of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

If a law abrogates or abridges a fundamental right

If a law abrogates or abridges a fundamental right ( ( by amendment or by insertion in the 9 by amendment or by insertion in the 9thth

Schedule

Schedule ), ), ththe e CoCoururt t mamay y exexerercicise se itits s jujudidicicial al rereviview ew popower wer anand d exaexamimine ne it it on on ththee touchstone of the basic structure doctrine as reflected

touchstone of the basic structure doctrine as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 andin Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 9 by application of the "rights" and

9 by application of the "rights" and "essence of the right" tests"essence of the right" tests1010_..

Therefore, the crucial question must always be: Are the restrictions imposed on the exercise Therefore, the crucial question must always be: Are the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the rights under Arts. 19(1) (a) and 19(1) (g) reasonable in view of all the surrounding of the rights under Arts. 19(1) (a) and 19(1) (g) reasonable in view of all the surrounding circumstances? In other words are the restrictions reasonably necessary in the interest of circumstances? In other words are the restrictions reasonably necessary in the interest of public order under Article 19(2) or in the

public order under Article 19(2) or in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6)?interest of the general public under Article 19(6)?

The

The IndIndian ian ConConstistituttution ion undunder er ArtArticlicle e 19(19(1) 1) (a) guaran(a) guaranteetees s eveevery ry citcitizeizen n the the riright ght toto freed

freedom of om of speech and expressispeech and expression and on and petitpetitioner being a ioner being a leadileading TV ng TV Channel has the rightChannel has the right to express its views and various news of National and International relevance in its edition to express its views and various news of National and International relevance in its edition

(16)

and any kind of unreasonable restriction on this right will amount to the violation of the and any kind of unreasonable restriction on this right will amount to the violation of the right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution

right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution1111_..

Here by imposing the Cable Television Act, government has shown an unconstitutional Here by imposing the Cable Television Act, government has shown an unconstitutional method of controlling the media. Under article 19 of Indian Constitution it is promised that method of controlling the media. Under article 19 of Indian Constitution it is promised that the right to speech and

the right to speech and expression is guaranteed to every citizen of India.expression is guaranteed to every citizen of India.

1.2 Do Courts have the power to declare an Act of the Legislature to be

invalid?

1.2.1 Invalidity of Cable Television Act 1.2.1 Invalidity of Cable Television Act

The theoretical reasoning for this view can be derived from the theory in jurisprudence of The theoretical reasoning for this view can be derived from the theory in jurisprudence of the eminent jurist Kelsen (The Pure Theory of Law). According to Kelsen, in every country the eminent jurist Kelsen (The Pure Theory of Law). According to Kelsen, in every country there is a hierarchy of legal norms, headed by what he calls as the `Grundnorm

there is a hierarchy of legal norms, headed by what he calls as the `Grundnorm''1212 _{(The Basic}_{(The Basic}

Norm). If a legal norm in a higher layer of this hierarchy conflicts with a legal norm in a Norm). If a legal norm in a higher layer of this hierarchy conflicts with a legal norm in a

lower layer the former will prevail. lower layer the former will prevail.

In India the Grundnorm is the Indian

In India the Grundnorm is the Indian Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows:Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows:

(i) The Constitution of India; (i) The Constitution of India;

(ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by Parliament or by the

(ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by Parliament or by the State Legislature;State Legislature; (iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of Rules made under the Statute, (iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of Rules made under the Statute, Regulations made under the Statute, etc;

Regulations made under the Statute, etc;

(iv) Purely executive orders not made under any Statute. (iv) Purely executive orders not made under any Statute.

11

11 _{Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan and Ors. v. Anand Patwardhan}_{Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan and Ors. v. Anand Patwardhan}

and Anr.

and Anr. (C.A. No. 613 of 2005)(C.A. No. 613 of 2005) 12

(17)

“The gunmen were able to trawl the internet for information after cable television feeds to “The gunmen were able to trawl the internet for information after cable television feeds to the two luxury hotels and office block were cut by the authorities.

the two luxury hotels and office block were cut by the authorities.

The men looked beyond the instant updates of the Indian media to find worldwide reaction The men looked beyond the instant updates of the Indian media to find worldwide reaction to the events in

to the events in MumbaiMumbai, and , and to keep abreast of to keep abreast of the movementthe movements of s of the soldiers sent to stopthe soldiers sent to stop them.”

them.”1313

--

‘‘

How Gadgets Helped How Gadgets Helped Mumbai Attackers’Mumbai Attackers’

By Noah Shachtman, Dangerroom, Web Magazine By Noah Shachtman, Dangerroom, Web Magazine

Some of the facts which went uncon

Some of the facts which went unconsidered or left out by the government:sidered or left out by the government:

1.

1. ChaChannel ‘Annel ‘ATV’ waTV’ was just dois just doing theing their duty to show trr duty to show true visuue visuals of the eveals of the events to thents to the general public as it was a

general public as it was a matter concerning general public also.matter concerning general public also.

2.

2. This inThis incident icident is very dis very differefferent from ornt from ordinary dinary wartiwartime reportme reporting as it wing as it was an attas an attack onack on the public and the public needs to be alerted.

the public and the public needs to be alerted.

3.

3. Channel ‘Channel ‘ATV’ was jATV’ was just shoust showcasinwcasing how weakneg how weakness and inss and inabiliability of our dety of our defence andfence and intelligent systems.

intelligent systems.

4.

4. From the News extract given above (p6), it can be concluded that terrorist were ableFrom the News extract given above (p6), it can be concluded that terrorist were able to trawl information even after the cable feeds were cut off. It wasn’t just two to trawl information even after the cable feeds were cut off. It wasn’t just two channels that are accused to have leaked the vital information regarding national channels that are accused to have leaked the vital information regarding national security.

security.

5.

5. The goveThe governmrnment dident didn’t wain’t wait for the channt for the channel’el’s reply to the shos reply to the show cause notw cause noticeice. The. The government straight away cancels the broadcasting licenses of the channel ‘ATV’ government straight away cancels the broadcasting licenses of the channel ‘ATV’ concerned. The idea

concerned. The idea of natural justice is not followed.of natural justice is not followed.

13

(18)

“Art 13(2)

“Art 13(2)1414 _{of the Constitution ensures that instruments emanating from any source of law-}_{of the Constitution ensures that instruments emanating from any source of}

law- permanent or temporary, legislative or judicial or any other source –will pay honour to the permanent or temporary, legislative or judicial or any other source –will pay honour to the

constitutional provisions relating to fundamental rights.” constitutional provisions relating to fundamental rights.”1515

The second clause relates to post-constitution laws and prohibits the state from making a The second clause relates to post-constitution laws and prohibits the state from making a la

law, w, whiwhich ch eieithther er tatakekes s awaway ay tototatalllly y or or ababrorogagatetes s in in parpart, t, a a fufundndamamenentatal l ririghght. t. ThThee constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court under art 32 to protect the fundamental constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court under art 32 to protect the fundamental rights against infringement by the state.

rights against infringement by the state.

The Constitution of India provides wide Scope and application of judicial review of statutes The Constitution of India provides wide Scope and application of judicial review of statutes with relevant considerations. If a law (norm) in a

with relevant considerations. If a law (norm) in a higher layer in the above hierarchy clasheshigher layer in the above hierarchy clashes with a law in a lower layer, the former will prevail. A constitutional provision will prevail with a law in a lower layer, the former will prevail. A constitutional provision will prevail over all other laws, whether in a statute or in delegated legislation or in an executive order. over all other laws, whether in a statute or in delegated legislation or in an executive order. Courts have the power to declare an Act of the Legislature to be invalid

Courts have the power to declare an Act of the Legislature to be invalid1616. Only one ground. Only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid is if it clearly for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt

doubt1717..

1.2.2 How and when should the power of the Court to declare the Statute unconstitutional 1.2.2 How and when should the power of the Court to declare the Statute unconstitutional be exercised?

be exercised? This is a

This is a very importvery important question because invaliant question because invalidating an Act dating an Act of the of the LegisLegislaturlature e is a is a gravegrave step and should never be lightly taken. As observed by the American Jurist Alexander step and should never be lightly taken. As observed by the American Jurist Alexander Bic

Bickel kel "ju"judicdicial revieial review w is is a a councounter majorter majoritaitariarian n forforce ce in in our systeour system, m, sinsince ce when thewhen the

14

14 _{13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.-}_{13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental} rights.-(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in

by this Part and any law made in contraventcontravention of this clause shall, to the extent of ion of this clause shall, to the extent of thethe contravention, be void.

contravention, be void. 15

15 _{Ranbir Singh, A}_{Ranbir Singh, A Lakshminat}_{Lakshminath, LexisNexis Student}_{h, LexisNexis Student Series Constitutio}_{Series Constitutional Law,}_{nal Law, New}_New Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths

Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, , 2006, p195p195 16

16 _{Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803)}_{Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803)}

17

(19)

Supreme Court declares unconstitutional a legislative Act or the act of an elected executive, Supreme Court declares unconstitutional a legislative Act or the act of an elected executive, it thus thwarts the will of the representatives of the people; it exercises control, not on it thus thwarts the will of the representatives of the people; it exercises control, not on behalf of the prevailing majority, but against it."

behalf of the prevailing majority, but against it."1818

Judicial review is strictly judicial and thus quite different from the policy-making functions Judicial review is strictly judicial and thus quite different from the policy-making functions of the executive and legislative branches. Full and free play must be permitted to that wide of the executive and legislative branches. Full and free play must be permitted to that wide margin of considerations which address themselves only to the practical judgment of a margin of considerations which address themselves only to the practical judgment of a legislative body. The legislative process, after all, is a major ingredient of freedom under legislative body. The legislative process, after all, is a major ingredient of freedom under government

government1919_..

The legislation could be held unconstitutional only when those who have the right to make The legislation could be held unconstitutional only when those who have the right to make laws have not merely made a mistake (in the sense of apparently breaching a constitutional laws have not merely made a mistake (in the sense of apparently breaching a constitutional provision) but have made a

provision) but have made a very clear one, so clear that very clear one, so clear that it is not open to rational question.it is not open to rational question.

“Constitution is not a tightly drawn legal document like a title deed to be technically “Constitution is not a tightly drawn legal document like a title deed to be technically construed; it is rather a matter of great outlines broadly drawn for an unknowable future.” construed; it is rather a matter of great outlines broadly drawn for an unknowable future.”2020

In short, a Constitution offers a wide range for legislative discretion and choice. The In short, a Constitution offers a wide range for legislative discretion and choice. The judi

judicial veto is cial veto is to be to be exerciexercised only in sed only in cases that leave no cases that leave no room for reasonablroom for reasonable e doubt.doubt. TheThe Court can declare a statute to be unconstitutional only when there can be no manner of Court can declare a statute to be unconstitutional only when there can be no manner of doubt that it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and there is no

doubt that it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and there is no way of avoiding such decision.way of avoiding such decision.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was observed that In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was observed that

It is the solemn duty of the Courts to uphold the civil rights and liberties of the citizens It is the solemn duty of the Courts to uphold the civil rights and liberties of the citizens against executive or legislative invasion, and the Court cannot sit quiet in this situation, but against executive or legislative invasion, and the Court cannot sit quiet in this situation, but must play an activist role in upholding civil liberties and the fundamental rights in Part III. must play an activist role in upholding civil liberties and the fundamental rights in Part III. So

So we we can can conconcluclude de thathat t CabCable le TelTelevievisiosion n Act Act paspassed violased violates tes the provisthe provisionions s of of thethe constitution and can be declared void by the court of law.

constitution and can be declared void by the court of law.

18

18 _{A. Bickel, `The Least Dangerous Branch'}_{A. Bickel, `The Least Dangerous Branch'}

19

19 _{B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Ors}_{B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Ors}

20

(20)

1.2.3 Citizen’s Rights to

1.2.3 Citizen’s Rights to InformationInformation

As in the case of Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors.Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors (1997) 4 As in the case of Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors.Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors (1997) 4 SCC 306, it demanded the publication of Vohra committee report on criminalization of SCC 306, it demanded the publication of Vohra committee report on criminalization of politics and as well as supporting material placed before it. The report was laid before the politics and as well as supporting material placed before it. The report was laid before the parliament and held; that in a democracy citizens have right to know about the affairs of the parliament and held; that in a democracy citizens have right to know about the affairs of the

Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies2121 _of_of

governance aimed at their welfare. governance aimed at their welfare.

1.2.4 Restriction on freedom of speech-Art 19(2) to 1.2.4 Restriction on freedom of speech-Art 19(2) to (6)(6)

As per constitution of India the guarantee of the rights is restricted by the constitution itself As per constitution of India the guarantee of the rights is restricted by the constitution itself by conferring upon the state the power imposed by law, reasonable restrictions as may be by conferring upon the state the power imposed by law, reasonable restrictions as may be necessary in the larger interest of community. The restrictions on freedom are provided in necessary in the larger interest of community. The restrictions on freedom are provided in art 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution. The restrictions should be reasonable and cannot be art 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution. The restrictions should be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary.

arbitrary.

The clause ‘The security of the state’ mentioned in art 19(2) in constitution is only one The clause ‘The security of the state’ mentioned in art 19(2) in constitution is only one which tends to support the notion from

which tends to support the notion from the government’s side. Government accuses both the government’s side. Government accuses both thethe channels to have leaked the vital information to terrorist which was against the security of channels to have leaked the vital information to terrorist which was against the security of the state. But the fact is that both the channels never had an intention or will to act against the state. But the fact is that both the channels never had an intention or will to act against th

the e natnatioionanal l inintetererestst, , bubut t to to susupppporort t a a lalargrger er caucause se of of mamakiking ng ththe e pupublblic ic awawarare e anandd government understand their failures.

government understand their failures.

The Government of India in order to save their political image had diverted the public The Government of India in order to save their political image had diverted the public attention by making a general opinion that it was due to the live coverage of the entire attention by making a general opinion that it was due to the live coverage of the entire terrorist organisations which leaked vital information to terrorist which was against the terrorist organisations which leaked vital information to terrorist which was against the security of the state.

security of the state.

The News Broadcasters Association, which is headed by the retired Chief Justice of India J The News Broadcasters Association, which is headed by the retired Chief Justice of India J S Verma, has now drafted guidelines for self regulation.

S Verma, has now drafted guidelines for self regulation.

21 21

(21)

As per the guidelines: As per the guidelines:

1. The channels can have no live phone interviews with the terrorists 1. The channels can have no live phone interviews with the terrorists

2. Or show any live interviews with the victims or security personnel, while the security 2. Or show any live interviews with the victims or security personnel, while the security operation is still going on

operation is still going on 3.

3. AlsAlso, o, the the chachannennels ls cancannot not shoshow w any any foofootagtage e thathat t hinhinderders s the operatthe operation ion by by secsecuriurityty agencies in any way

agencies in any way 4.

4. No mention should be made of the iNo mention should be made of the identity, number and status of dentity, number and status of hostages, in an ongoinghostages, in an ongoing hostage situation

hostage situation

5.

5. Any filAny file footage that is aie footage that is aired must have a date and timred must have a date and time clearly inde clearly indicatiicating when theng when the

ffoooottaaggee wwaass sshhoott

The broadcasters have also agreed on not showing blood and gory images constantly being The broadcasters have also agreed on not showing blood and gory images constantly being repeated on TV channels. These guidelines are in sync with anti-terror media protocol repeated on TV channels. These guidelines are in sync with anti-terror media protocol which is already in place in several

which is already in place in several countries like the US, UK, Canada ancountries like the US, UK, Canada and Russiad Russia2222_..

22

(22)

2. Whether the show cause notice is valid or not?

2.1 Is the show cause notice applied in a right way?

A show cause notice is court order

A show cause notice is court order that requires a party to appear before that requires a party to appear before the court andthe court and explain why a certain course of

explain why a certain course of action should not be taken action should not be taken against it. If the party cannotagainst it. If the party cannot convince the court or fails to appe

convince the court or fails to appear, then course of action is taken.ar, then course of action is taken.

As in the instant case the show

As in the instant case the show cause noticecause notice11 _{that was issued by the Government of India}_{that was issued by the Government of India}

through its special Secretary Served to the petitioner that their Broadcast Licenses have through its special Secretary Served to the petitioner that their Broadcast Licenses have been cancelled forthwith as they have

been cancelled forthwith as they have leaked vital information to terrorist which was againstleaked vital information to terrorist which was against the security of the state. But in this case the petitioner, they were not allowed to appear the the security of the state. But in this case the petitioner, they were not allowed to appear the court to explain about the information leaked and why the license should not be cancelled. court to explain about the information leaked and why the license should not be cancelled.

So the notice is wrong and cannot be implemented as it does not hear the petitioners point So the notice is wrong and cannot be implemented as it does not hear the petitioners point on how the action should not be taken against them. In the same way the cancellation of the on how the action should not be taken against them. In the same way the cancellation of the license is also an inappropriate action because the petitioners have not been allowed to license is also an inappropriate action because the petitioners have not been allowed to prove there point on why should there license not be cancelled so in continuation to the prove there point on why should there license not be cancelled so in continuation to the

show cause notice, the canceling the license cannot be done against the petitioner. show cause notice, the canceling the license cannot be done against the petitioner.

As the show cause notice is not valid so the broadcasting license cannot be cancelled as in As the show cause notice is not valid so the broadcasting license cannot be cancelled as in the case of D. Dwarkaknantha Reddy Vs.Chaitanya Bharati Educational Society and Ors the case of D. Dwarkaknantha Reddy Vs.Chaitanya Bharati Educational Society and Ors22_.it_.it

(23)

was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that

was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that no opportunity of being heard was given no opportunity of being heard was given beforebefore giving the show cause notice as it is happening in the instant case so an analogy can be giving the show cause notice as it is happening in the instant case so an analogy can be drawn between the above case and the instant case.

drawn between the above case and the instant case.

So it can be inferred from the above case that the show cause notice has become void as it So it can be inferred from the above case that the show cause notice has become void as it does not takes the petitioners point into consideration

does not takes the petitioners point into consideration on proving their point on why shouon proving their point on why shouldld their license should not be cancelled.

their license should not be cancelled.

The show cause notice is used wrongely in the present case so the license cannot be The show cause notice is used wrongely in the present case so the license cannot be cancelled.

cancelled.

3. Whether the cancellation of license and ban on

3. Whether the cancellation of license and ban on broadcast by The Ministry of

broadcast by The Ministry of

Home, Government of India valid or not?

3.1 The test of Rational Nexus is

3.1 The test of Rational Nexus is not proved.

not proved.

The case has no element of rational nexus provided in it. This is so for the simple reason The case has no element of rational nexus provided in it. This is so for the simple reason that there is no valid, logical, or a meaningful link or connection provided in the action that there is no valid, logical, or a meaningful link or connection provided in the action performed and then the ‘punishment’ given. As the intention of the legislature enacted is to performed and then the ‘punishment’ given. As the intention of the legislature enacted is to stop the telecast of such cases, therefore this retrospective ban does not prove to be a point stop the telecast of such cases, therefore this retrospective ban does not prove to be a point of rational nexus. Furthermore the cancellation of the license is not a fair decision on their of rational nexus. Furthermore the cancellation of the license is not a fair decision on their part and was not an appropriate act. As the Live Media Coverage of the attack was already part and was not an appropriate act. As the Live Media Coverage of the attack was already banned, therefore the cancellation of the licences had proved to be of a much higher degree, banned, therefore the cancellation of the licences had proved to be of a much higher degree,

unwanted and unreasonable consequence. unwanted and unreasonable consequence.

In the case of Ajay Goswami vs.UOI and In the case of Ajay Goswami vs.UOI and OrsOrs2323

Petitioner filed a petition in the court requesting the court to direct authorities to strike a Petitioner filed a petition in the court requesting the court to direct authorities to strike a balance between the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by balance between the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by

23 23

(24)

press and the duty of government to protect minors from abuse, exploitation and other press and the duty of government to protect minors from abuse, exploitation and other harmful effects of such expression. Held, pictures in dispute had been published by the harmful effects of such expression. Held, pictures in dispute had been published by the respondents with a view to inform the readers of the news from around the world and in respondents with a view to inform the readers of the news from around the world and in India. Any steps to ban the publishing of certain newspeices or pictures would fetter the India. Any steps to ban the publishing of certain newspeices or pictures would fetter the independence of free press which

independence of free press which is one of the hallmarks of our democratic is one of the hallmarks of our democratic set upset up..2424

Furthermore the principle of ‘Ratio Decidendi’ also holds a mention here. The principle of Furthermore the principle of ‘Ratio Decidendi’ also holds a mention here. The principle of Ratio Decidendi is a Latin term which means’ the ground or reason of decision’. The Ratio Decidendi is a Latin term which means’ the ground or reason of decision’. The rationale for a decision, i.e., which tells us the legal principle on which a decision is made. rationale for a decision, i.e., which tells us the legal principle on which a decision is made. In this case the the rationale involved is not sound enough to cancel away the license.

In this case the the rationale involved is not sound enough to cancel away the license.

Wh

Wherere e susufffficicieient nt sasafefeguguarards ds in in tetermrms s of of varvarioious us lelegigislslatatioionsns, , nonormrms s anand d ruruleles s anandd regulations are available to protect society in general and children in particular, any step to regulations are available to protect society in general and children in particular, any step to ban publishing of certain news pieces

ban publishing of certain news pieces or pictures would fetter independence of or pictures would fetter independence of free press.free press.2525

In the case of P.Venugopal vs. UOI In the case of P.Venugopal vs. UOI2626

This was basica

This was basically a case lly a case of prematuof premature terminare termination. tion. PetiPetitionertioner, the , the directdirector of All or of All IndiaIndia Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)

Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) immediately prior to the commencement of theimmediately prior to the commencement of the added provisions and by virtue of the legislative command contained in the added provision added provisions and by virtue of the legislative command contained in the added provision was made to demit his office from the date of commencement of said added provision. This was made to demit his office from the date of commencement of said added provision. This was proved to be case of clear discrimination.

was proved to be case of clear discrimination.

Held, if a person is appointed for tenure, principle of superannuation does not apply - Once Held, if a person is appointed for tenure, principle of superannuation does not apply - Once a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment to the said post begins when he joins a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment to the said post begins when he joins and it comes to an end on the completion of tenure unless curtailed on justifiable grounds and it comes to an end on the completion of tenure unless curtailed on justifiable grounds -Cu

Curtrtaiailmlmenent t of of ththe e teterm rm of of fifive ve yeyearars s cacan n onlonly y be be mamade de fofor r jujuststififiaiablble e rereasasons ons anandd compliance with principles of natural justice for premature termination of the term.

compliance with principles of natural justice for premature termination of the term.

24 24 25 25 _{Supra pg.}_{Supra pg.} 26 26 _{(2008)5 SCC 1}_{(2008)5 SCC 1}

(25)

3.

3.2 2 Le

Lega

gal

l va

vali

lidi

dity

ty of

of Ba

Ban

n im

impo

pose

sed

d by

by th

the

e go

gove

vern

rnme

ment

nt on

on Li

Live

ve Me

Medi

diaa

Coverage.

Both the news channels ‘ATV’ and

Both the news channels ‘ATV’ and ‘LTV’ are private companies defined under ‘LTV’ are private companies defined under the sectionthe section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the channels are the Cable Service

3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the channels are the Cable Service2727_{providers who}_{providers who}

transmit or re-t

transmit or re-transmit of any broadcast ransmit of any broadcast television signals through cables. television signals through cables. In sec 19, 20, 22In sec 19, 20, 22 of Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995,

of Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995,

Sec 19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in Sec 19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest.—

public interest.—

Where

2828

_{[any authorized officer] , thinks it necessary}

or expedient so to do in the public interest, he may, by order, prohibit

an

any

y ca

cabl

ble

e op

oper

erat

ator

or fr

from

om tr

tran

ansm

smit

itti

ting

ng or

or re

re-t

-tra

rans

nsmi

mitt

ttin

ing

g

2929

_[any

pr

prog

ogra

ramme

mme or

or ch

chann

annel

el if,

if, it

it is

is no

not

t in

in co

confo

nform

rmity

ity wit

with

h the

the pr

presc

escri

ribed

bed

27

27 _{Cable Television (Network}_{Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995 sec}_{s) Regulation Act, 1995 sec 2(b)}_{2(b) “cable service" means the}_{“cable service" means the} transmission by

transmission by cables of cables of programmes programmes including re-transmission by including re-transmission by cables of cables of anyany broadcast television signals.

broadcast television signals. 28

28

Substituted for ‘an officer, not below the rank of a Group `A' officer of the Central Government authorised by the Substituted for ‘an officer, not below the rank of a Group `A' officer of the Central Government authorised by the State Government in this behalf’ by Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2000, with effect from State Government in this behalf’ by Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2000, with effect from 1.9.2000. ‘

(26)

pr

prog

ogra

ramm

mme

e co

code

de re

refe

ferr

rred

ed to

to in

in se

sect

ctio

ion

n 5a

5and

nd ad

adve

vert

rtis

isem

emen

ent

t co

code

de

re

refe

ferr

rred

ed to

to in

in se

sect

ctio

ion

n 6

6 or

or if

if it

it is

is]

] li

like

kely

ly to

to pr

prom

omot

ote,

e, on

on gr

grou

ound

nds

s of

of

re

reli

ligi

gion

on,

, ra

race

ce,

, la

lang

ngua

uage

ge,

, ca

cast

ste

e or

or co

comm

mmun

unit

ity

y or

or an

any

y ot

othe

her

r gr

grou

ound

nd

whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between

di

diffe

ffere

rent

nt rel

relig

igio

ious,

us, ra

racia

cial,

l, lin

lingu

guist

istic

ic or

or re

regio

gional

nal gr

grou

oups

ps or

or ca

caste

stes

s or

or

communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquility.

Sec 20. Power to prohibit operation of cable television network Sec 20. Power to prohibit operation of cable television network in

in publpublic ic intinteresterest.—.— 3030

_[1]

_{[1] Wh}

_Where

_{ere the}

_{the Cen}

_Centr

_tral

_{al Go}

_Gover

_vernm

_nment

_{ent thi}

_think

_nks

_{s it}

_it

necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the

operation of any cable television network in such areas as it may, by

notificatio

notification in the

n in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

Sec 22. Power to make rules.—

(1) The Central Government may, by

notificatio

notification in

n in the Official Gazette, make rules to

the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions

carry out the provisions

of this Act.

(2

(2)

) In

In pa

part

rtic

icul

ular

ar,

, an

and

d wi

with

thou

out

t pr

prej

ejud

udic

ice

e to

to th

the

e ge

gene

nera

rali

lity

ty of

of th

the

e

foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following

matters, namely,—

(a) the form of application and the fee payable under sub-section (2) of

section 4;

31

_[[((a

_aa

_a))

_tth

_he

_{e m}

_ma

_an

_nn

_ne

_er

_{r o}

_of

_{f p}

_pu

_ub

_blliic

_ciis

_siin

_ng

_{g tth}

_he

_{e su}

_sub

_bs

_sc

_crriip

_pttiio

_on

_{n rra}

_atte

_es

_{s a}

_an

_nd

_{d tth}

_he

_e

periodi

periodical intervals at

cal intervals at which such subscriptions are payable under

which such subscriptions are payable under

sub-section (7) of section 4A;

(aaa

(aaa)) the for

the form and mann

m and manner of submi

er of submittin

tting repor

g report under sub

t under sub-sect

-section (9) of

ion (9) of

se

sect

ctio

ion

n 4A

4A an

and

d th

the

e in

inte

terv

rval

al at

at wh

whic

ich

h su

such

ch re

repo

port

rt sh

shal

all

l be

be

submitted periodically under that sub-section;]

(b)

(b) the

the pro

program

gramme c

me code

ode und

under s

er secti

ection 5

on 5;;

(c)

(c) the a

the adve

dvertise

rtisement

ment code

code und

under se

er sectio

ction 6;

n 6;

30 30

Inserted by Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2000, with effect from

Inserted by Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2000, with effect from 1.9.2000.1.9.2000.

31 31

(27)

(d

(d)) the fo

the form of regi

rm of registe

ster to

r to be mai

be maint

ntain

ained by a

ed by a ca

cabl

ble oper

e operato

ator unde

r underr

section 7;

(e)

(e) any ot

any other m

her matter w

atter which i

hich is requ

s required to b

ired to be, or may b

e, or may be, pre

e, prescrib

scribed.

ed.

(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be

after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session,

for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session

or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the

sessi

session

on imme

immediat

diately

ely foll

followin

owing

g the

the sessi

session

on or

or the

the succe

successive

ssive sessi

sessions

ons

aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or

both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall

thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as

the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment

shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done

under that rule.

Certain steps taken by the Government were completely against the provisions of the Cable Certain steps taken by the Government were completely against the provisions of the Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995.

Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995. 1.

1. GoveGovernmrnment puts a ban ent puts a ban on Live Coveon Live Coveragrage of e of TerTerrorrorist Attist Attacksacks. . OnlOnly an y an autauthorhorizeizedd officer has the authority to ban an agency from broadcasting certain programme. In officer has the authority to ban an agency from broadcasting certain programme. In the present case the officer authorized is the special secretary to the ministry of the present case the officer authorized is the special secretary to the ministry of home. As per sec 19 of Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995 goes this home. As per sec 19 of Cable Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995 goes this Central Government officer who is not below group ‘A’ rank can only be authorised Central Government officer who is not below group ‘A’ rank can only be authorised by State Government only. The conflict arises regarding the issuing authority which by State Government only. The conflict arises regarding the issuing authority which makes the Ban void. In the present case it can noticed that ban on the Live Media makes the Ban void. In the present case it can noticed that ban on the Live Media Coverage of the attack were issued by Government of India. It is clear that this ban Coverage of the attack were issued by Government of India. It is clear that this ban has no legal validity as it can only issued by State Governments in the Union of has no legal validity as it can only issued by State Governments in the Union of India.