Section of media gives communal colour to news: SC
Apex court was hearing petition on communalisation of Tablighi Jamaat
There is no control over fake news and slandering in Web portals and YouTube channels. If you go to YouTube, you will find how fake news is freely circulated and anyone can start a channel on YouTube.
— SC Bench
The Supreme Court on Thursday slammed social media platforms like YouTube and web portals for the circulation of fake news without any accountability and lamented that a section of media gives communal colour to every news, thereby showing the country in bad light.
The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, also said that social media, including web portals and YouTube, listen only to the powerful voices and not judges and institutions.
The top court’s damning of social media platforms came in the course of hearing a plea by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind seeking action against certain media houses, including visual media, for the communalisation of Nizamuddin Tablighi Jamaat congregation.
When the court lamented that some media outlets aired communal content linking the spread of the Coronavirus to a Tablighi Jamaat meet held at Nizamuddin in Delhi, the Jamiat lawyer pointed out that it was the government that was encouraging these outlets to spread such fake news.
Taking exception to social media outlets gloating over their invincibility, the bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice A.S. Bopanna, said, “There is no control over fake news and slandering in Web portals and YouTube channels. If you go to YouTube, you will find how fake news is freely circulated and anyone can start a channel on YouTube.”
“The problem is, everything in this country is shown with a communal angle by a section of the media. The country is going to get a bad name ultimately,” said the bench, adding, “Did you (the Centre) ever attempt to regulate these private channels?”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta pointed out that a redressal mechanism and timely resolution of grievances of social media users and OTT platforms is already provided under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule, 2021, that require these platforms to appoint a grievance redressal officer who is a resident of India.
Speaking for the bench, CJI Ramana said, “I have not come across where these social media,
Twitter and Facebook, respond to common people. They never respond. There is no accountability. About the institutions, they have written badly and they do not respond and say that this is their right. They only worry about powerful men and not judges, institutions or common man. That is what we have seen. This is our experience.” CJI Ramana also said that judges are maligned on social media.
Mr Mehta told the court that rules are under challenge before many high courts and are required to be clubbed together for hearing by the apex court, he told the court. The court said that the plea for the transfer of matters pending before different high court challenging IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule, 2021, will be taken up in the next hearing of the Tablighi Jamaat case, but hearing on the challenge to the Rules will be taken up after six weeks.
As Mr Mehta sought two weeks’ time to file certain documents, CJI Ramana reminded him that the Centre has already taken four adjournments to file an affidavit.
Mr Mehta pointed to the need to balance freedom of press and citizens' right to get correct information. We have tried to make sure that no untoward information/news is broadcast. Rules have been framed for broadcasters and web portals.