Opinion: Gagging the press – India’s media muzzled

A number of stringent rules and regulations have been put into place by the Law Commission in India looking into the governance of the Indian media industry.

In 2014, a number of stringent rules and regulations were put into place by the Law Commission in India, effectively looking into the governance of the Indian media industry. This consultation paper on media laws had been commissioned to elicit the views of all the stakeholders and delved into many issues without focusing on the important aspect of press freedom. Many points that the Commission discussed in detail were that of social media, the privacy of the press, unofficial sting operations and regulation of government-related media outlets.

Many members of the general public and of the Indian media industry feel that the paper lacked any clarity, and that some of the claims made were weak and irresolute. The Commission also stated that it would be looking into a number of issues which has also been met by strong criticism due to the simplicity and basic nature of the questions posed.

“Should the term objectionable content be defined?” A person’s understanding of the term “objectionable” could vary greatly from the next. Members of the media may take the term loosely and stretch the very essence of the word, taking the meaning out of context and abusing the law in the process. Also, if a clear-cut definition can be used, why use a term that can be interpreted in different ways and that leaves room for discretion? The term “objectionable content” should be clearly defined, amended or replaced entirely.

“Should Section 66A of the IT Act be retained in its present form or should it be modified/ repealed?” This section which outlines the terms of regulation of what can be passed over the internet, including social media sites, can also be described as very vague. The terms and descriptions used in this section are not concise, and again, could be interpreted differently by different people. Certain phrases that are used in this section can be open to varying forms of interpretation.

This section states that it is a punishable offence to send messages that are “offensive” or can be construed as being “annoying” or to cause “inconvenience”. What a person deems to be annoying differs greatly between individuals, as a very sensitive person may find offence with even the slightest critique or derogatory statement. It is because of statements and terms such as these that the Commission is thought to be giving the police and various other governmental establishments too much power to exert their authority and to make arrests, especially since only senior police officials have the power to make arrests due to someone posting an “annoying” statement via social media.

A number of people have already fallen prey to these laws. In the state of West Bengal, two professors who taught at Jadavpur University found themselves under arrest, simply for forwarding an email depicting a cartoon image that lampooned Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, founder of the All India Trinamool Congress party and Chief Minister since 2011. Due to section 66A of this commission, the two professors had to spend the night in jail. Upon their release, they appealed to the State Human Rights Commission due to their ill-treatment and the nature of the arrest. The outcome was ruled in their favour and they were awarded compensation.

However, this ruling fell on deaf ears and the state of West Bengal ignored the order. These two professors have fallen foul of these laws and regulations and it is cases like this that raise the issue of freedom of speech and the gagging of certain avenues of expression in the Indian media. This section of the commission is currently being challenged by vast sections of both the Indian media and the public due to this precise issue.

The third issue that the commission is said to be considering is the need for a regulatory authority, either a self-regulatory committee or a committee with state or governmental powers that would have the power to suspend, revoke or potentially ban material that it deems to be unacceptable. Unsurprisingly this has also faced its fair share of criticism. Regulating so-called “offensive” material posted on the internet is an enormous undertaking and would require a great deal of manpower to make it even the slightest bit feasible.

China, for example, has attempted it and have gone to what some people might deem to be as extreme levels to ban social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and other world renowned sites such as Google and YouTube. Although they may have been successful in banning many users from mainland China, it is still possible to access these sites and there are many people that have found ways to post on social media in China. This demonstrates that any type of stringent form of regulation or suspension of internet content is going to be extremely difficult to implement.

These so-called discretionary laws are extremely selective, and often affect those at the bottom end of society or the Indian cast system (still rife in Indian society!) who may not have the money or education to be able to appropriately defend themselves. If these laws are to be amended, set them out under a criterion that would allow no risk of any form of discrimination to take place, have clearly measurable standards so that those who invoke them can be held into account and so that there is no room for discretion or room for different forms of interpretation.

The commission hasn’t stated how it plans to go about regulating this content and has been very vague throughout the different sections. The entire paper lacks clarity and the consensus among many of those in the Indian media is that a vast number of amendments need to be made in order to better explain certain points and to outline certain issues regarding freedom of the press.

Many of the regulations outlined in the commission would greatly restrict what certain media agencies would be able to post. However, the terms outlined in the commission would also affect the general public.

As previously mentioned, in certain states, individuals have come under fire and have even been arrested by the police due to content posted or sent over the internet. AIB, “All India Bakchod”, a comedy group, came under enormous criticism when they rose to fame in early 2015 when they engineered a comedy roast, roasting famous Bollywood film actors, Ranvir Singh and Arjun Kapoor. The video was posted over the internet and within hours, went viral. The group now have over one million subscribers.

Despite the fact that the comedy roast was hosted by famous film producer Karan Johar, was for charity and was being supported by other members of Bollywood and the Mumbai elite, due to the filthy language and derogatory terms used – standard comedy roast material, the group, including the actors that took part and were seen in the audience, came under a barrage of criticism, so much so that AIB were ordered to remove the video by the State of Maharashtra.

The government of Maharashtra also ordered an enquiry against the event organisers. Even famous Bollywood actors have expressed their distaste at the event and those who participated. Actor Aamir Khan stated that “I completely believe in freedom of speech but as creative persons, we have to understand that we all have a certain responsibility towards society”. However, different sections of society may find offence with different views and opinions. Those that live in the major cosmopolitan cities such as Mumbai or Delhi, for example, are less likely to adopt a stringent way of thinking, are likely to be much more liberal in their attitudes and are less likely to find offence with so-called “filthy material”, all of which was posted by the AIB in jest. It is likely that when Aamir Khan mentioned society, he was speaking about the majority of India’s population that live in rural remote areas and that have a very set culture, morals and values by which they live by.

Regulation of the press in India is not only necessary, some say it is essential in order to prevent certain hard-hitting sections of press from running rogue in a country where corruption is already rife and the norm in certain states and remote areas of the country. But the levels and forms of regulation need to be strongly considered and evaluated.

India as a country is becoming a lot more liberal, especially in the major cities where many people have adopted Western values and a modern way of thinking. People are no longer prepared to wait to get married to someone chosen for them by mum or dad. They are now confident enough to date and marry people of their choice but in the meantime, they now have to look over their shoulders and be extremely careful when posting anything online, for fear that it may be deemed to be offensive or “annoying” by an independent or government lead authority.

If India wants to keep up to speed with the Western world, it must adopt a different attitude and must not tie the hands of the press or gag them from expressing certain viewpoints. Yes, some form of regulation is necessary, as it is in any country or area of work, but the people in India are beginning to adopt a much more modern way of thinking and limiting their views and ideas by suppressing what the media are allowed to say or publish will restrict their opinions and may ultimately restrict India’s growth and development as a nation.