DID I&B MINISTRY APPLY ITS MIND, ASKS SUPREME COURT

“We have to see if there was a need for laying down such standards of broadcasting,” Mehta said.

Referring to the September 9 notification of the Information & Broadcasting ministry asking Sudarshan TV to adhere to the programme code failing which it will be acted against and Section of 6 of the Cable Television (Network) Rules that prohibits attack on religion and communities, Justice Chandrachud asked the Solicitor General that after the notification there were broadcasts from September 11 to 14. “Did the ministry apply its mind to those programmes,” the judge asked the S-G.

The Solicitor-General said, “I need to take instructions.”

While the court was primarily focusing on the visual media, given its reach and people’s inclination to watch them, the Solicitor General sought to broaden the scope of the hearing and took the court to the portals and blogs which were writing and saying “nefarious” things having serious ramifications.

Pointing to the “critical qualitative” difference in different platforms, Justice Chandrachud said, “Law has not to be for everything to regulate something” thereby suggesting that just to regulate visual media it is not necessary that there should be law to regulate every platform. Justice Chandrachud said that it is difficult to regulate the internet as it is based overseas but something that is based within the country and beams here can be regulated.