advertisement
These are the words of the Bombay High Court, which on Friday, 30 July, directed 29 media channels to remove prima facie defamatory content against actor Shilpa Shetty. The order follows a plea moved by Shetty against allegedly "maligning campaigns" run by certain media channels dragging her name into the picture while reporting on her husband Raj Kundra's pornography case.
Raj Kundra is currently in judicial custody in a case which accuses him of financing porn films, which allegedly lured women to act in them on the pretext of getting Bollywood roles.
Media law does recognise this "lakshman rekha" while balancing the freedom of press and the right to privacy. Therefore, various provisions of the Programme Code, Cable TV Network (Regulations) Act, Cable TV Rules, and multiple judgments of the Supreme Court delineate what is ethically and legally prohibited in media reportage.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, the freedom of press is explicitly recognised as a standalone right. However, under the Indian Constitution, 'freedom of press' is not a separate or explicitly worded fundamental right.
However, just like a citizen's freedom of speech, the freedom of press is not absolute. The said freedom is restricted by various legal and regulatory provisions, which are enacted in conformity with "reasonable restrictions" laid down in Article 19(2) of the Constitution – interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
While ruling in favour of Shetty, the Bombay High Court highlighted that the press can't be prevented from doing a critical reportage of a public figure, as long as such criticism doesn't 'cross the line'.
There are multiple legal and regulatory mechanisms that try to strike this balance between freedom of press and fundamental rights of individuals. Their objective is to encourage a culture of 'self-regulation' in media:
Programme Code: Sets down guidelines that media channels need to confirm to while broadcasting content
Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act
Cable TV Network Rules
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Provides a regulatory framework for OTT platforms, social media portals, and digital media portals. The legality of the Rules are currently under challenge before various high courts.
Section 228 of Indian Penal Code: Prohibits media and provides punishment for publishing the identity of a victim of sexual violence.
Section 74 Juvenile Justice Act: Prohibits media from revealing the identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection.
In the present case, the court took into consideration the existing law and noted that the reportage which casted aspersions on Shilpa Shetty's parenting does amount to "crossing the line".
However, the court also said that it is not possible to say at this stage that all the media channels added as defendants to the suit broadcasted defamatory content. Therefore, concerns raised by Shetty in her plea would require closer scrutiny.
Each report needs to be scrutinised individually, and no general restraint order can be passed.
Therefore, while reporting the claims of police and what has unearthed during the investigation might not be prima facie defamatory, but using an accusation to cast aspersions one one's character and morality, would be. Even more so in Shilpa Shetty's case, where, so far, she is not even the subject of a police investigation. Her husband, Raj Kundra, is, but not her.
The media needs to be aware of this "lakshman rekha". As the law not only provides for takedown of content, but also punitive action. It is only a matter of time and patience when both the judiciary and the regulatory bodies exercise the power to punish.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined