Yakub Coverage: Govt Cannot Be Allowed to Wade Into the Newsroom

The show-cause notice to three channels for Yakub coverage shows the government’s whimsical resolve to regulate media

File picture of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (Photo: PTI)

Government’s Overreach

• By issuing the show-cause notices to three channels, government’s role has come under the scanner
• Provisions if strictly enforced, would end up penalising almost all types of content
• Rule 6 makes the government body a censor, not a regulator, and even a potential newsroom editor

“Deprive terrorists of the oxygen of publicity,” Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s “Iron Lady” prime minister thundered in 1985. To implement this noble vision, she got the venerable BBC to bow to her diktat and cancel a television documentary that included an interview with Martin McGuinness, a reputed leader of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) which Britain considered a terrorist organisation.

It was the first time the government, which funded the BBC, interfered with its prerogative of deciding what to broadcast. The BBC’s 2,000 journalists went on a one-day protest strike, decrying the government’s action. Other broadcast journalists joined the protest, effectively knocking out Britain’s radio and television news for a day.

This nugget of history is important not only because the present Indian prime minister’s supporters and acolytes cannot stop themselves from comparing him to Thatcher, and nursing fond dreams of India’s “Thatcher Moment” (which, as of now, is limited to economic policies, but can be expanded to other arenas as well). It is important because of the I&B Ministry’s notice to three television channels, and the media and the public’s reactions to the incident.

Recently executed “terrorist” Yakub Memon and the circumstances surrounding his final court battles and journey to the gallows saw a severe polarisation of opinion in the Indian media, social media community as well as polity. There was no dearth of people slamming certain newspapers and television channels for acting like “terrorism sympathisers”. Now, by issuing the show-cause notices to NDTV 24 x7, Aaj Tak and ABP News, the government has bestowed an imprimatur upon the howling hordes whose understanding of press freedom is nil at best, and cynical at worst.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Venkaiah Naidu speaking to media in New Delhi, August 4, 2015. (Photo: PTI)

Sweeping Powers and Arbitrary Actions

NDTV 24x7 has been charged with breaching Rule 6(1)(g) of the Programme Code of the Cable Television Network Rules, which prohibits “casting aspersions against the president and judiciary.” Reason – a debate in which Majid Memon, who once represented Yakub, criticising the imposition of the death penalty and making a strong case for why the president should not have rejected his mercy petition.

ABP News and Aaj Tak have been asked to explain why they broadcast a Chhota Shakeel interview in which the gangster slams the judiciary for exacting vengeance upon Yakub. Other provisions of Rule 6, prohibiting any content which is likely to encourage or incite violence or containing anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote-anti-national attitudes, which amounts to contempt of court, or could affect the integrity of the nation, have also been invoked.

As is evident, the provisions grant untrammeled powers to the regulator, and if strictly enforced, would end up penalising almost all types of content. But the government hardly does so, and that is precisely why the present action comes across as not only arbitrary, but also cynical. It is clear that the government, which has discovered a new-found deference for the judiciary only because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, has taken upon itself the noble duty to enforce blind respect for the judiciary.

The very government which, while defending its power to control judicial appointments by the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, has gone hammer and tongs at the very same Supreme Court. It could also be said that the court, which uses its power of criminal contempt with swashbuckling aggression to muzzle criticism and critique, would be delighted at finding an ally in the government.

Media personnel surrounding protesting lawmakers in Parliament, August 6, 2015. (Photo: PTI)

Not Even a Whimper?

As of now, only the Broadcast Editors’ Association has voiced strong criticism of the government’s efforts to dictate news coverage. A united condemnation by all electronic media houses is conspicuous by its absence, while certain MPs of the ruling dispensation, who otherwise never tire of championing freedom of the press have maintained a calculated silence which screams about their cynical idealism.

There was also the unedifying spectacle of Sudhir Chaudhary, Editor of Zee News, accusing the three channels of indulging in terrorism. Little do these people realise that Rule 6 gives the government such vast powers that if it wants, it can, depending upon its vested interests, exercise a vice-like grip over every other programme of every other channel. It makes the government body a censor, not a regulator, and even a potential newsroom editor.

Compare this scenario with that of Britain. In May this year, the Home Secretary was blasted by her own colleague for planning to monitor and censor television channels to keep out “extremist content.” That plan never took off. Also look at the US. In 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is the country’s broadcast regulator, came up with a newsroom survey proposal. This survey would have allowed the government to ferret out information regarding news philosophy and editorial decision-making, and would have been a grave infringement of press freedom. It had to be scrapped because the media and politicians criticised it in the strongest of terms.

Presently, the constitutional validity of Rule 6 is under challenge before the Delhi High Court. Hopefully, the court will read it down. But those remaining silent, or contending that a show-cause notice, issued under prevailing law is not censorship, or those rooting for a patriotic media need to be reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s words: “…our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”