<p>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union government on a PIL for setting up an independent high-powered committee headed by former Chief Justice of India or apex court judge to review entire legal framework related to media business regulations and suggest guidelines for it.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response on the plea filed jointly by a filmmaker, Nilesh Navalakha and a civil engineer, Nitin Memane.</p>.<p>The petitioners asked the court to set up a media tribunal to adjudicate upon complaints against media, channels and networks, saying media, particularly the electronic one, has become like an unruly horse, which needs to be tamed.</p>.<p>The petition filed through advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Shashwat Anand and Amit Pai, maintained that the plea is not to curb the fundamental rights of the media-business, but only to bring about some accountability for misinformation, inflammatory coverage, fake news, breach of privacy, etc.</p>.<p>"The media is simply a business, albeit one which is one of the most powerful structures of power in itself, and thus, the same must be regulated by constitutional norms and principles," the plea said.</p>.<p>The petitioners sought laying down of guidelines outlining the broad regulatory paradigm within which media houses, i.e., broadcasters and electronic media, can exercise their rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, so as to judicially regulate them. </p>.<p>"The whole self-regulatory process makes the electronic media broadcaster a judge in his own case... since its role has changed, from service to business, and from mission to the profession, in such circumstances, it cannot mechanically be referred to as the fourth pillar, to avert all judicial attempts at regulating it," they added. </p>.<p>The establishment of an independent, regulatory tribunal or judicial-body, known can hear and expeditiously adjudicate upon complaint petitions against the media-businesses filed by the viewers/citizens. The tribunal can bring about consequences for acting in a fashion that is contrary to constitutional goals and morality, they said. </p>.<p>The petitioners raised several legal issues including if Article 21 of the Constitution envisaged the right of the citizens to free, fair and proportionate media reporting.</p>.<p>"The restrictions on the electronic media must be placed at a higher footing as over the last few years media trials have become the order of the day. These trials not only have a prejudicial effect on the rights of the accused but also its very concept is an anathema to the administration of justice," they added.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Union government on a PIL for setting up an independent high-powered committee headed by former Chief Justice of India or apex court judge to review entire legal framework related to media business regulations and suggest guidelines for it.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought a response on the plea filed jointly by a filmmaker, Nilesh Navalakha and a civil engineer, Nitin Memane.</p>.<p>The petitioners asked the court to set up a media tribunal to adjudicate upon complaints against media, channels and networks, saying media, particularly the electronic one, has become like an unruly horse, which needs to be tamed.</p>.<p>The petition filed through advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Shashwat Anand and Amit Pai, maintained that the plea is not to curb the fundamental rights of the media-business, but only to bring about some accountability for misinformation, inflammatory coverage, fake news, breach of privacy, etc.</p>.<p>"The media is simply a business, albeit one which is one of the most powerful structures of power in itself, and thus, the same must be regulated by constitutional norms and principles," the plea said.</p>.<p>The petitioners sought laying down of guidelines outlining the broad regulatory paradigm within which media houses, i.e., broadcasters and electronic media, can exercise their rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, so as to judicially regulate them. </p>.<p>"The whole self-regulatory process makes the electronic media broadcaster a judge in his own case... since its role has changed, from service to business, and from mission to the profession, in such circumstances, it cannot mechanically be referred to as the fourth pillar, to avert all judicial attempts at regulating it," they added. </p>.<p>The establishment of an independent, regulatory tribunal or judicial-body, known can hear and expeditiously adjudicate upon complaint petitions against the media-businesses filed by the viewers/citizens. The tribunal can bring about consequences for acting in a fashion that is contrary to constitutional goals and morality, they said. </p>.<p>The petitioners raised several legal issues including if Article 21 of the Constitution envisaged the right of the citizens to free, fair and proportionate media reporting.</p>.<p>"The restrictions on the electronic media must be placed at a higher footing as over the last few years media trials have become the order of the day. These trials not only have a prejudicial effect on the rights of the accused but also its very concept is an anathema to the administration of justice," they added.</p>
