NEW DELHI: Even as the Government has decided to give self-regulation of television channels a chance, the Delhi High Court has asked the union government to constitute a statutory regulatory body for the electronic media.

The bench led by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog rejected the idea of self-regulation of the broadcasters. The directive came on a public interest litigation filed against ?Emotional Atyachar? show on UTV Bindass in 2010.

"Absence of state intervention on its own is no guarantee of a rich media environment. On the contrary: to promote a media environment characterized by pluralism and diversity, State intervention is necessary," the Court said.

Noting that freedom of expression was not an absolute right, the bench said any reasonable restrictions could be imposed only by legislation.

The Court in its judgment ruled that state intervention is necessary to promote the media environment that is characterised by pluralism and diversity. The Court added that a regulatory body was required for ensuring compliance of the provisions mentioned under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and the Cable Television Network Rules 1994 by the media organisations.

The court recommended setting up a statutory regulatory body that would comprise of men and women of eminence from field of law, science, art and culture, literature, history and social sciences to be constituted. Security of tenure needs to be brought into practice for the members of the regulatory body to ensure non-interference from the government.

The court also directed that the Broadcasting Consumers Complaint Committee (BCCC), the self-regulatory body of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), to look into the complaints of violation of programme and advertising codes and other provisions by the media and give its rulings, until the Government sets up a statutory body.

The court also ruled that the decisions of the BCCC shall be treated as the foundation stone for taking appropriate action against the offenders. It also asked the BCCC to decide the complaints of "vulgarity" and "obscenity" against the reality show ?Emotional Atyachar?, and the Centre would enforce the decision.

It said there was a desperate rush to grab eyeballs which had led the broadcast media to sully itself with sensationalism by adding colour and spice to events and transgressing individual privacy.

"To guarantee pluralism and diversity of opinion requires provisions for public broadcasting, commercial broadcast and print media and community-based broadcast. To ensure media pluralism may require the application of competition law by the State to prevent monopoly of forms of communications, airwaves etc.," the bench said.

New Delhi: The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council wants its recommendations to be extended to the policy guidelines on downlinking of channels in India.

Until now, the BCCC, set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) for general entertainment channels, has been making recommendations confined to the policy guidelines on uplinking of channels in India.

Effectively, this could mean that BCCC would be able to make comments even on channels that are being downlinked from overseas, according to sources in the IBF.

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry says it is ?actively? examining the various recommendations received from the BCCC, Ministry sources told indiantelevision.com.
BCCC Chairperson Justice A P Shah told indiantelevision.com today that the recommendations were made in response to an interaction with the ministry, and it was for the government to take a decision on these.

Among other recommendations made earlier this year, the BCCC has asked for gradation of ?violations? from mild to severe and said that as a general practice, sanctions imposed should be in the nature of fines and directions for correction

It has said that fines should be substantial in case of serious violations, and not merely token fines. For this, the BCCC has suggested appropriate amendments to Clause 10.2 of the uplinking guidelines.?The BCCI said suspension and revocation of licence of television channels that violate the various codes must be resorted to in exceptional circumstances and only in cases of repeated and extremely severe violations.

Sanctions under Clause 8.2 and Clause 10.2 of the uplinking guidelines should be imposed only in cases of repeated and extremely severe violations. Clause 8.2 provides for prohibition of broadcast for up to 30 days for the first violation, for 90 days for the second violation and for the remaining period of the permission in case of third violation.

Clause 10.2 provides that renewal of permission will not be considered if a channel is found guilty of violations, including that of the programme and advertisement code on five occasions or more.

It says factors to determine the severity of the violation include degree of breach (extent and the severity); duration of breach (time period for which the breach was alive); harm caused (whether any injury has been caused to the objectives of the restrictions); reversibility of the harm (whether the harm can be corrected through any measures); and measures taken for correction of the breach by the broadcaster.??

The BCCC also says the decision of the relevant adjudicatory body pertaining to the imposition of fines, issuance of directions, suspension and/or revocation of the license, should be made appealable.?The decision of the adjudicatory body should be in consultation with the relevant self-regulatory bodies on a case-to-case basis, to determine the degree and extent of the violation by the broadcaster.??

The BCCC points out that while passing the relevant order of sanction, the deciding authority should consider whether the self-regulatory bodies have already taken cognisance of the violation and whether any penalty has been imposed before arriving at its decision. In any case, any decision should be in ?effective consultation? with the self-regulatory bodies, the BCCC said.

The BCCC was set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation in June 2011 as an independent body for general entertainment channels. The BCCC came into being after consultations between the IBF and the I&B Ministry to implement ?self-regulatory guidelines and complaints redressal mechanism? for all television channels, excluding news and current affairs channels. The general entertainment channels, children?s channels and special interest channels are covered by the BCCC.

NEW DELHI: The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) has asked the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to set up an independent adjudicatory body to arbitrate in cases of violations of codes made by television broadcasters and also provide for graded financial penalties depending on the severity of breaches.

BCCC chairman Justice K L Shah said fines should be substantial in case of serious violations, and not merely token fines. For this, the BCCC has suggested appropriate amendments to Clause 10.2 of the uplinking guidelines.

The BCCI said suspension and revocation of licence of television channels that violate the various codes must be resorted to in exceptional circumstances and only in cases of repeated and extremely severe violations.

The gradation of ?violations? should range from mild to severe and as a general practice, sanctions imposed should be in the nature of fines and directions for correction, the BCCC has conveyed to I&B Ministry.

It said sanctions under Clause 8.2 and Clause 10.2 of the uplinking guidelines should be imposed only in cases of repeated and extremely severe violations. Clause 8.2 provides for prohibition of broadcast for up to 30 days for the first violation, for 90 days for the second violation and for the remaining period of the permission in case of third violation.

Clause 10.2 provides that renewal of permission will not be considered if a channel is found guilty of violations, including that of the programme and advertisement code on five occasions or more.

The suggestions by BCCC say that factors that should be accounted for to determine the severity of the violation include degree of breach (extent and the severity); duration of breach (time period for which the breach was alive); harm caused (whether any injury has been caused to the objectives of the restrictions); reversibility of the harm (whether the harm can be corrected through any measures); and measures taken for correction of the breach by the broadcaster.

The BCCC also said the decision of the relevant adjudicatory body pertaining to the imposition of fines, issuance of directions, suspension and/or revocation of the license, should be made appealable.

The decision of the adjudicatory body should be in consultation with the relevant self-regulatory bodies on a case-to-case basis, to determine the degree and extent of the violation by the broadcaster.

In suggestions sent on Tuesday to the I&B Ministry, the BCCC said while passing the relevant order of sanction, the deciding authority should consider whether the self-regulatory bodies have already taken cognisance of the violation and whether any penalty has been imposed before arriving at its decision. In any case, any decision should be in ?effective consultation? with the self-regulatory bodies, the BCCC said.

Justice Shah said the council had taken a serious note of complaints relating to women and children and issued advisories in this regard. ?Broadcasters should strictly avoid showing children below the age of 12 dancing to item numbers. The treatment of children during the course of the programme is also important. Stereotyping of women should be discouraged in TV programmes.?

The BCCC was set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation in June 2011 as an independent body for general entertainment channels. The BCCC came into being after consultations between the IBF and the I&B Ministry to implement ?Self-Regulatory Guidelines and Complaints Redressal Mechanism? for all television channels, excluding news and current affairs channels. The general entertainment channels, children?s channels and special interest channels are covered by the BCCC.

IBF President Man Jit Singh said, ?Self-regulation is the most appropriate way to handle content on television. The BCCC is a truly independent council that looks into complaints from all over the country. The broadcasters take all recommendations, directions and advisories of the BCCC very seriously and will continue to support the council?s efforts.?

BCCC Member and noted actor Shabana Azmi said: ?Freedom of speech and expression, especially artistic freedom, is very important and a democratic right. This freedom, however, comes with responsibility, and this is where BCCC plays an important role. At BCCC, we hear the channels when serious complaints come before us. We are happy to say that there has been full compliance of the BCCC?s directives by the member channels.?

IBF Vice President Rajat Sharma said, ?The BCCC is a credible and successful system of self-regulation that has been functioning for 21 months now. It has done good work and we are sure it will continue to do so.?

BCCC Member Bhaskar Ghose said, ?At present, debates relating to content and similar issues cater only to a defined audience. We feel its scope needs to be expanded with fruitful participation of a much wider audience in society.?

Rise in complaint cases

Justice Shah noted that there has been a rapid increase in the number of complaints being handled by BCCC in view of the various measures implemented by the IBF?s member channels and the increased awareness amongst the Indian television audience.

The council is focused on timely disposal of complaints it receives from viewers, civil society, RWAs and the Ministry in its endeavour to make television viewing a pleasurable experience in the fast-evolving Indian social milieu.

Till 30 November 2012, BCCC had received 8628 complaints and suggestions, including 1072 specific complaints, and it has disposed of an overwhelming number of these to the satisfaction of complainants.

BCCC has issued seven advisories so far to member channels on different topics of concern.

The BCCC has also held two interactive sessions with channel heads/ standards & practices heads / content heads to develop a better understanding about the IBF?s self-regulatory guidelines and to make television content suitable for unrestricted viewing. Such sessions would also be held in other parts of the country.

NEW DELHI: Describing the efforts of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry towards regulation of television as a ?farce? and the self-regulatory mechanisms as ineffective, MediaWatch-India has sent notice to Broadcast Content Complaints Council to expeditiously take action on certain issues raised by it or face action in a court of law.

The MWI - a voluntary initiative to promote decency and accountability in various media ? says the issues raised and suggestions made by it concerns basic rights of entire gamut of Indian TV audience, and so it has given the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the BCCC 15 days to initiate action / spell out decisions in respect of each of the issues raised by it.

The letter regrets that there is no comprehensive and systematic regime of self-regulation put in place by the broadcasting fraternity or any semblance of ?legal regulation? by the I&B Ministry in its capacity as content regulator under extant legal provisions.

"The establishment of an independent/statutory authority to regulate broadcast content is still an elusive dream. The unfortunate result of this regulatory vacuum has been that millions of Indian viewers are rendered voiceless without any basic/credible grievance redressal mechanism against the content-related violations by the channels, which is adversely affecting their basic rights as consumers of broadcast content."

Inadequate publicity to Inter-Ministerial Committee

Referring to the role of the Ministry, it says adequate publicity has not been given to the Inter-Ministerial Committee. Furthermore, the Ministry has failed to prescribe any well-defined terms of reference or rules of procedure for systematic functioning of the committee. "Being a pure bureaucratic apparatus headed by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry (with a lone exception of a member from ASCI), the IMC is meeting rarely to deliberate on the complaints received against the satellite TV and FM Radio Channels".

The Ministry has not instituted any separate mechanism for systematic receipt, acknowledgement and reply of complaints received against the TV channels nor provided any dedicated secretarial set up to aid and assist IMC in processing the complaints. As no time limit is prescribed, the decision-making involved in taking action against TV channels by the Ministry is "dead slow resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of complaints against TV channels".

MWI also refers to the Annual Report of the Ministry which says ?It is neither possible nor desirable for the Government to monitor and regulate the volume and diversity of content provided, which is increasingly getting localized. Any kind of direct control by the Government is seen as violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution.?

MWI wants to know why there is no representation of civic society apart from ASCI in the IMC.

Reports of EMMC not acted upon

While the Ministry is receiving regular reports on monthly basis from Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) regarding hundreds of violations by the satellite TV and FM radio channels, the Inter-ministerial committee is not processing them seriously and the Ministry is hardly taking any action against the erring channels, the MWI alleges.

While the local cable networks and satellite channels are bound by the same programme and advertisement codes under the Cable Network (Regulation) Rules, 1994, the Ministry is according differential treatment to satellite channels by adopting a very liberal code of ?penalties? in dealing with content-related complaints against satellite channels by simply issuing advisories or warning; or requiring the channel to scroll an apology for a specified number of days; apart from suspension of broadcast for specified time period.

It alleges that the Ministry has been forwarding complaints to the BCCC or the News Broadcasting Standards Authority of the News Broadcasters Association without any enabling provision in law to that effect.

"If the government truly believes in self-regulation, it should have taken efforts to facilitate/mandate for bringing together of broadcasting fraternity under one umbrella, should have formalized the self-regulatory code and penalties by consensus and by giving some sort of legal recognition for the decisions of self-regulatory bodies and thereby limiting the applicability of extant laws and by prescribing some minimum standards to be followed by them in the interests of viewers."

Self-regulation neither comprehensive nor deterrent

Referring to self-regulation regime by NBA/IBF as ?neither comprehensive nor deterrent?, MWI also points out that less than 300 broadcasters are members of these two bodies and the majority are free to flout any Code.

It is seen that the self-regulation efforts initiated in the last few years by the broadcasting industry in the form of NBA and IBF, ?though commendable?, are found to be not comprehensive and having limited efficacy due to several serious drawbacks.

The regime put in place by NBA and IBF is hardly ?viewer-centric? so as to inspire any public confidence in ?self-regulation?, much less to have a deterrent effect on the erring Channels.

IBF and NBA have not asked their member channels to allot any time to explain to the viewers about the newly introduced self-regulatory procedure and the fact that the complaint system is a two-tier one.

MWI also notes that no legal recognition is given by the government for the self-regulatory codes evolved by the bodies and their decisions but for the ad hoc ?practices? put forth by the Ministry like forwarding complaints against member channels of NBA/IBF to NBSA/BCCC respectively without any enabling legal provision to this effect. Furthermore, there is no appellate mechanism presently available for complainants/broadcasters against the decisions of BCCC & NBSA in case of their inaction or arbitrary decisions.

MWI wants the IBF to modify the relevant clause of BCCC by including a provision for deterrent financial penalty in cases where BCCC holds that the member channel had violated the code or where a member failed to abide by the direction of BCCC.

NEW DELHI: The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) has taken strong exception to double-meaning dialogues used in ?comedy shows? telecast on various general entertainment channels (GEC).

In a statement, BCCC Chairman Justice A P Shah expressed concern over this trend. The dialogues in comedy shows often border on crass, abusive, vulgar and double-meaning language with sexual overtones in the name of humour.

The BCCC feels that at times such comedy shows cross the threshold of ?generally accepted standards? in terms of language and reflect the improper attitude of participants.

 
While stressing it has no intention of curtailing artistic freedom, BCCC advised all member channels of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to exercise discretion to make television viewing more pleasurable and not let such ?comedy shows? become platforms for making lewd remarks.

The BCCC feels these ?comedy shows? should be appropriately scheduled to have the minimal impact on diverse Indian viewers. Sometimes, the content of the so-called jokes is demeaning and smutty.

The BCCC also advised IBF member channels to use friendly banters without being derisive to any community, religion and individual.

Justice Shah said "Comedy is an intrinsic part of our life and it is only natural that TV channels produce and telecast programmes that are humorous and light-hearted. The BCCC, however, feels that the line that divides healthy comedy from vulgarity, obscenity and double-meaning language must be strictly adhered to."

"This is necessary to ensure that the social message sent across through various comedy shows to millions of viewers does not overstep this all-important threshold. We are confident that the channels which telecast comedy shows will keep this in mind," he said.

This is the seventh general advisory issued by BCCC to GECs.

The earlier advisories issues earlier were on: ?Sexualisation of Children? in TV Shows (24 Dec 2012); Health & Safety of Children Participating in TV Shows (24 Dec 2012); Depiction of Animals/Wildlife in TV Programmes (19 July 2012); Telecast of Award Functions (19 July 2012); Participation of Children in TV Reality Shows (19 July 2012); and Portrayal of Women in TV Programmes (24 Jan 2012).

NEW DELHI: The Broadcast Contents Complaints Council (BCCC) today advises all member channels of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to refrain from featuring children below the age of 12 years in any situation that has sexual or adult overtones.

The advisory is bound to also affect serials and reality shows on television, since the BCCC says "children should not be made to dance to songs that have covert sexual overtones. They should not be allowed to imitate adult gestures with a sexual or vulgar content. And they should not be placed in situations where they wear makeup and costumes in an effort to imitate adult performers and then enact scenes, songs or dance moves with an adult content or a sexual subtext."

It said it had received many complaints about the sexualisation of children on talent and other shows on general entertainment channels. "The Council has watched some of these programmes and shares the concerns of those who have complained."

BCCC said the Advisory applied to all such situations and the BCCC did not consider it a mitigating circumstance if the channel had secured the permission of parents. "Our concern is with protecting children and in ensuring that Indian television portrays them in a manner that is devoid of sexual or vulgar overtones."

In a separate advisory, BCCC said member channels should refrain from placing children below the age of 16 years in situations that may endanger their health, safety and morale.

The content of any production and/or reality show that may cause anxiety/distress/ mental trauma to the participating children must be avoided. "The content of all shows should be sensitively handled, and the way children are projected should not harm or pose any risk to their safety and well-being, or cause any kind of health hazard."

Emphasis should be placed on the ?best interest of the child?.

The child must be consulted and heard at all times throughout by all concerned. "The participation of any child in any show, which may interfere with his/her ?right to education? in terms of effective school participation, should be avoided."

The Advisory should be read in conjunction with the Guidelines of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) on ?Participation of Children in TV and Reality Shows?, BCCC said.

Justifying the advisories, BCCC Chairperson Justice (Retd.) A P Shah said: ?Children command a crucial position both as viewers and participants of television programmes. The BCCC firmly believes that their interest cannot be compromised under any circumstance. This is also the letter and the spirit of various laws and enactments relating to our children."

?The BCCC is confident that both the Advisories issued today ? ?Sexualisation of Children in TV Shows? and ?Health & Safety of Children in TV Shows? ? will be strictly followed by the various TV channels during the production and telecast of their programmes. Our intention is to make television viewing a pleasurable experience for all, particularly children.?