There has always been a huge debate on this among various writers. Locke provides an interpretation to this as well. He sternly believes that ideas do require labour. Well we can’t expect that an idea to invent a bulb was without an extreme labour being done by Thomas Edison.
The evolving nature and spectrums of the mode of data distribution by the fourth pillar of Indian Democracy has given rise to dynamic challenges for the existing legal framework to control and regulate. Media being the fourth pillar is indeed playing a pivotal role in the society by trying to educate masses. The freedom of press ensures that citizens are vigilant, well informed, and therefore, can discharge their role in a democracy by fixing accountability.
Freedom of Press and Right to Know
The public’s “right to know” has become an increasingly popular political ideal in India. The essence of this right, for both the public and the press, has gained significance and acquired a new meaning in the contemporary era. Although the Constitution does not expressly guarantee the public the “right to know”, an increasing number of constitutional scholars argue that it is an implicit right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and by the general principles of constitutional democracy. Freedom of press constitutes not only the individual right of the owner of the news publications, the editor, or the journalist; it also includes the right of the citizens to be informed. It can be forcefully argued that the tenets of Article 19 offers within its ambit, the ‘right to know’ without any constitutional, statutory or executive frame- work to restrict or regulate the same before the cause of action arises. Comparatively speaking, the judicial discourse had long evolved since the days of classical Greek and Rome or the 16th century France which staunchly believed in prior restraints along with post- facto substantive measures.
Thus, freedom of press flows from the citizens’ right to know, which is conceived to be paramount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, through several of its decisions on fundamental rights, has developed this jurisprudence. The courts have always been of the opinion and champion of the concept that censorship, since it necessarily restricts freedom, has always been and will continue to be unpopular with those who, from principle, perversity or for profit, insist on unbridled freedom.
Here, as the journalist is claiming that his show is based on his investigation and analysis of data avail- able in the public domain on the selection of students in UPSC Civil Services Examination, it is not only the journalistic freedom which is restricted by the gag order, but it’s also affecting the people’s right to know about the pattern of selection of students in UPSC-CSE.
Writ Jurisdiction when Alternative Remedy is Available
The petitioners approached the Court by way of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows the citizens to approach the Apex Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights directly. It is settled law that this jurisdiction can only be invoked in the absence of a redressal mechanism or alternative remedy, unless there are compelling circumstances warranting interference of the constitutional court for vindication of fundamental rights. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies also cements this. The powers conferred and vested with the Apex Court under Article 32 is too infallible to adjudicate upon such issues as well (emphasis on the word ‘adjudicate’).
Rule 6 of the Cable and Television Networks (Regulation) Rules has adequate provisions which disallow the running of any programme, which is an attack on any religion, defamatory or communal. As noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order, if a show is found to be violative of the said rule, sanctions under Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable and Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955 are imposed. A bare reading of Sections 19 and 20 makes it amply clear that such sanctions/prohibitions will come from “any authorized officer” or the “Central Government” respectively. The Court, after mentioning the previous sections, took it upon themselves to exercise a power which must be kept outside of their reach.
One of the arguments advanced by the intervenors is that “hate speech” is punishable under Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act.
Without getting into the details of the said provisions and examining whether the content falls under their purview or not, what is to be seen here is that these provisions are punitive in nature, not preventive. Under no stretch of imagination can these be used by the Apex Court to issue a blanket order restricting the Freedom of Speech and Expression, which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. These provisions come into picture after the content is delivered/published, and if the person is found guilty, they shall be punished as per law. For the sake of argument, even if the Court interprets the said provisions to be preventive as well, it is well settled that Fundamental Rights will overpower statutory provisions if they are at loggerheads.
That right is not absolute; it comes with restrictions laid in Article 19(2). It is well settled that before restricting anyone’s freedom under Article 19(1)(a), the “speech/ expression” has to be examined; and if it passes the tests laid in Article 19(2) – post-examination – it may be restricted. One of the issues with this blanket gag order is that it was passed based on a “prima facie” view, formed after looking at some snippets of the show provided by the petitioners, even when the Counsel for Sudarshan TV requested the Court to watch and con- sider the series in toto. Quite interestingly, the Court did not enter the domain of Article 19(1)(a) vs. Article 19(2), but even if they had, it is not within the reach of the Court to pass gag orders invoking the restrictions laid in Article 19(2).
Notably, the constitutional text of Article 19(2) states that the State might make laws to restrict the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Firstly, it is the ‘State’ which can limit the right and secondly, it has to be done by bringing a ‘law’. In a long catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that judicial functions of the Judiciary are not under the ambit of “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution. In the landmark judgment of K.A. Abbas vs The Union of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that pre-censorship is allowed as per Article 19(2), but the same has to be done by statutory bodies which are formed by the “State” as per law. It was also laid that statutory bodies will have to lay guidelines and clearly express what would not be permissible. The Court, while getting into the debate of free speech and hate speech, fails to observe that no such guidelines have been formulated as of now. The apex court could have directed the appropriate statutory body/executive body to con-sider the prior restraint position and take appropriate action instead of venturing into the content editorial domains. No matter how one justifies it, Sr. Counsel Shyam Divan’s submissions that a constitutional court should not enter into the fields of content regulation are legally sound.
In this case, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, News Broadcasters Association and the Press Council of India were asked to reply, but the order was passed before they could submit their response. Simply put, no stakeholders – including the judges – could examine whether the impugned show could be termed as “hate speech” before the voice was muffled.
On a petition seeking similar reliefs in Delhi High Court, the Ministry of I&B, in its order dated 9th September 2020 refused to ban the show and stated that if the show violates the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, suitable action will be taken.
Jurisprudence on Prior Restraint: Bypassing the Statutory Mechanism
Delving into the jurisprudence of Prior Restraint, we shall start with the gold- en words of Mr. William Blackstone which strike at the heart of the current issue:“The liberty of the press is
indeed essential to the nature of a free state”. He emphasized on laying no previous restraints on publication, rather punish the publisher after publication, as per the established law. In Patter- son vs Colorado [205 U.S. 454, 462], Holmes J. of The Supreme Court of The United States, while referring to the cherished First Amendment of the American Constitution stated that it was passed to prevent previous restraints upon publications. Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and Article 21 of The Constitution of Japan guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression and prohibit censorship of any kind, categorically that of the Press. In India, there are a plethora of cases which have held that prior restraint orders shall not be passed. While hearing a PIL filed by the NGO Common Cause in 2017 praying for regulating the content of the media, the Hon’ble SC had opined that pre-broadcast or pre-publication censorship is not the business of the Court and that all grievances against objectionable content will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land after its publication.
The Counsel for the retired civil servants who intervened in the matter had argued that “hate speech undermines free market place of ideas”. Quite interestingly, in a blog, while defending free speech and criticizing blanket gag orders by the Apex Court, he had written: “Prior restraint is considered especially damaging to free speech because it chokes off the “marketplace of ideas” at its very source, and prevents certain individuals, or ideas, from entering the public sphere.” Subsequent to this, he also wrote: “we have been witnessing a disturbing trend where, in place of the legislature and the executive, it is the judiciary that has been taking upon itself the task of regulating, restricting, and censoring speech”. In another blog titled “Judicial Censorship: A Dangerous, Emerging Trend”, the Counsel had vehemently opposed the “trend” where Judiciary is passing gag orders which as per him is outside of the powers given to them by the Constitution of India. We, lawyers, have often been blamed for being biased towards our cause before the bench even though academically and legally we hold contradictory positions. But contradicting oneself with recorded writings is an insult to one’s own intelligence both as an academician and a lawyer.
It was argued that concession could be made in case of “hate speech”, which is distinguishable from “offensive speech”. For the sake of argument, even if we consider that the impugned show comes under the purview of hate speech, then also it has to be dealt with in accordance with the law. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U.O.I. & Ors., the Hon’ble SC had laid: “As referred to here in above, the statutory provisions and particularly the penal law provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of “hate speeches”. Thus, person aggrieved must resort to the remedy provided under a particular statute.” The precedents pertaining to categorization and classification of “hate speech” needs to be settled as well. Hate speech is an offence but dictating ‘prior restraint’ rationale akin to qui timet in the particular instance sets a dangerous precedent.
Observations of the Bench During Proceedings (Related to Constitution of a Committee of 5 Distinguished Individuals)
On Tuesday, in addition to free speech, self-regulation and legal restraint, the Court ventured into issues of ownership models of TV channels, revenue generation and the number of advertisements that the government gives to them. The discussion soon moved to the possibility of constitution of a committee of “distinguished individuals” to frame guidelines for the electronic media. Both the observations are deeply problematic because it’s not the domain of Judiciary to keep a check on the revenue model of media houses. The observation of the commis-be a case of judicial overreach.
Appointing committees and framing of regulations is a legislative and executive function. If someone believes in the idea of democracy, the concept of distinguished/eminent personalities can’t be said to conform with the high standards of constitutional democracy.
Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud observed that a pre-publication restraint is one of the rarest rationales to be exercised under extreme recourse and can take the Court down a slippery slope. The Court expressed its anguish but yet the gag order was not vacated and instead it went ahead with segments of content editorial suggestions. If one were to infer a ‘collateral bar rule’– which prevents any challenges to a court order if the party disobeys the order before first challenging it in court – arising out of such steps in the Indian context, it sets a duty of absolute obedience notwithstanding any constitutional rights un- less the concerned order has been set aside by a higher authority.
To conclude, the Court’s order of prior legal restraint is problematic in light of the availability of an alternative remedy under various Acts and the settled jurisprudence pertaining to the issue. It interferes with the people’s right to know. Moreover, it’s not the domain of Judiciary to keep a check on the revenue model of media houses; and the observation pertaining to the constitution of a commission, in our humble opinion, will be a case of judicial overreach.
Siddharth Nayak is Managing Partner, Atharva Legal. Vijay Tyagi is LL.M, Constitutional Law, Indian Law Institute and ex-LAMP Fellow. Krishnagopal Abhay is a 2nd-year student of LL.B at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi.