<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said the television news channels are creating divisions in the society as they are "agenda-driven and sensationalise news".</p>.<p>Maintaining that free and balanced press is very much required in the country, the top court said anchors of such programmes should be taken off air.</p>.<p>Taking up a batch of petitions including by journalist Qurban Ali, a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna orally observed that channels are competing against each other, they sensationalise things and serve an agenda. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="http://Supreme Court of India. Credit: Reuters Photo Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/how-many-arrests-made-sc-seeks-report-from-delhi-police-on-hate-speech-fir-1180759.html" target="_blank">‘How many arrests made': SC seeks report from Delhi Police on hate speech FIR</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench told a counsel, representing the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, that the news channels created divisions amongst the society.</p>.<p>"How many times have you taken off anchors? have you dealt with anchors in a way you send a message? See ultimately who controls the content of the programme…anchor and editorial... if anchor himself or herself are part of the problem," the bench said. </p>.<p>“We want a free and balanced press in India, free but balanced,” the bench said.</p>.<p>Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the Centre, contended that the government is contemplating a separate amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code and that is its stand in the matter. </p>.<p>"In the marketplace of ideas we have to also see populace. Are we really a fully developed country? Are the audience mature enough to receive this kind of information that is dished out? If freedom is exercised with an agenda, then you are not actually serving the people,” the bench said. </p>.<p>The bench also criticised the manner in which TV channels indulged in name callings against the man accused of peeing in an Air India flight. </p>.<p>The court said that nobody should be denigrated and everyone has the right to dignity and media people must learn that they’re occupying positions of great strength and what they’re saying impacts the whole country. </p>.<p>In October last year, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/statements-are-disturbing-sc-directs-3-states-to-take-action-against-hate-speech-1155655.html">apex court had ordered</a> the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without looking at the religion of the offenders.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said the television news channels are creating divisions in the society as they are "agenda-driven and sensationalise news".</p>.<p>Maintaining that free and balanced press is very much required in the country, the top court said anchors of such programmes should be taken off air.</p>.<p>Taking up a batch of petitions including by journalist Qurban Ali, a bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna orally observed that channels are competing against each other, they sensationalise things and serve an agenda. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="http://Supreme Court of India. Credit: Reuters Photo Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/how-many-arrests-made-sc-seeks-report-from-delhi-police-on-hate-speech-fir-1180759.html" target="_blank">‘How many arrests made': SC seeks report from Delhi Police on hate speech FIR</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench told a counsel, representing the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, that the news channels created divisions amongst the society.</p>.<p>"How many times have you taken off anchors? have you dealt with anchors in a way you send a message? See ultimately who controls the content of the programme…anchor and editorial... if anchor himself or herself are part of the problem," the bench said. </p>.<p>“We want a free and balanced press in India, free but balanced,” the bench said.</p>.<p>Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the Centre, contended that the government is contemplating a separate amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code and that is its stand in the matter. </p>.<p>"In the marketplace of ideas we have to also see populace. Are we really a fully developed country? Are the audience mature enough to receive this kind of information that is dished out? If freedom is exercised with an agenda, then you are not actually serving the people,” the bench said. </p>.<p>The bench also criticised the manner in which TV channels indulged in name callings against the man accused of peeing in an Air India flight. </p>.<p>The court said that nobody should be denigrated and everyone has the right to dignity and media people must learn that they’re occupying positions of great strength and what they’re saying impacts the whole country. </p>.<p>In October last year, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/statements-are-disturbing-sc-directs-3-states-to-take-action-against-hate-speech-1155655.html">apex court had ordered</a> the Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand Police to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without looking at the religion of the offenders.</p>
