India

• Author: Venkat Iyer
• Pages: 209-255

INDIA

BY

VENKAT

IYER

ndia,

the

most populous democracy

in the

world,

has

mass media that

are

considered largely

free.

The

founding

fathers

of the

Indian Constitu-

tion placed

a

high premium

on

freedom

of

expression, praising

it and

giving

it

high priority

in the

country's

Bill

of

Rights. Their approach

was

best summed

up by

Jawaharlal Nehru,

the

country's

first

prime minister,

who

said,

"I

would rather have

a

completely

free

press with

all the

dangers

involved

in the

wrong

use of

that

freedom

than

a

suppressed

or

regulated

press."1

Although successive governments have sometimes departed

from

that philosophy, attempts

to

unduly restrict

or

stifle

free

speech have been

few

and far

between.

Under

the

Constitution, certain subjects, such

as

broadcasting,

certifi-

cation

of

cinematographic

films,

and the

taxation

of

newspaper advertising

are

within

the

exclusive

domain

of the

central government, while

the

twenty-six state governments have responsibility

for the

regulation

of

the-

atres,

dramatic performances,

and

other entertainment.

A

third

category

of

subjects, such

as

regulation

of

newspapers, books,

and

printing presses,

is

regulated

by

either

the

central

or

state governments, with

the

former

having precedence over

the

latter

in a

conflict.2

1.

This declaration came

in a

speech made

on 20

June

1916

in

protest against

the

Press

Act

1910.

2.

Constitution

of

India,

Article 246, read with Sch. VII.

209

I

A.

OWNERSHIP

AND

REGULATION

OF

THE

MASS MEDIA

i)

Locally Owned Mass

Media

a)

Electronic

Media

Most

of the

Indian mass media

are

privately owned.

The

only significant

exception

is

national radio

and

terrestrial

television,3

which

are

owned

and

run

exclusively

by the

government. This government control

has

often

been

a

cause

of

concern, given

frequent

attempts

by

ministers

and

officials

in

successive governments

to

misuse these media

for

partisan

ends.

A

par-

ticularly

egregious example

of

such misuse occurred during

the

1975-77

state

of

emergency imposed

by the

then prime minister, Mrs. Indira Gan-

dhi, under controversial circumstances. During this period,

All

India

Radio

(AIR)

and

Doordarshan,

the

national radio

and

television networks,

respectively,

were suborned

by the

government

to

(1)

broadcast propa-

ganda

put out by the

ruling Congress party;

(2)

suppress

any

news favour-

able

to the

opposition;

(3)

promote personality cults around Mrs. Gandhi

and her

younger son,

Sanjay,

who was

being groomed

as a

successor

to the

prime ministership; and,

(4)

generally,

do the

government's

bidding.4

Even

during normal times, complaints about

the

partisan nature

of

AIR's

and

Doordarshan's functioning have been numerous. These com-

plaints have centred around gross inequities

in the

allocation

of air

time

for

the

coverage

of

government

and

opposition events; persistent

and

perva-

sive

pro-government bias

in

news reporting; arbitrary decision making

in

the

treatment

of

politically sensitive subjects

for

broadcast; denial

of air

time

to

independent commentators

who are

likely

to be

critical

of

govern-

ment policies;

and

vindictive treatment

of

staff

who

refuse

to

indulge party

whims. State monopoly

has

also

often

been blamed

for a

general lack

of

professionalism

in the

administration

of

AIR

and

Doordarshan.

These

problems have

led to

frequent calls,

by

media practitioners

and

others,

to

ease

the

government's tight control over

the

electronic media,

including

the

possibility

of

privatization.

The

government's response

to

3.

That

is,

conventional television

in

which

the

programs

are

broadcast directly

to the

viewer

from

an

earth-based station, usually situated within

the

national territory.

4.

For a

detailed account

of the

treatment

of All

India Radio

and

Doordarshan during

this period,

see

White

Paper

on

Misuse

of

Mass

Media

during

the

Internal

Emergency

(New

Delhi: Government

of

India, August 1978),

at

66-75

[hereinafter

White

Paper].

COUNTRY

REPORTS

210

India

these

calls

has

been

to

rule

out

privatization altogether,

on the

grounds that

the

country

was not

ready

for it.

Instead,

the

government promised

a

mea-

sure

of

autonomy

in the

daily operations

of AIR and

Doordarshan.

A

ten-

tative step towards conferring this autonomy

was

taken

in

1989 with

the

introduction

of a

bill

in

Parliament called

the

Prasar

Bharati

Bill. However,

that measure

failed

to

meet

the

expectations

of the

pro-reform campaign-

ers,

most

of

whom believed that

it did not go far

enough.

The

bill

was

passed

by

Parliament

in

1990,5

and

several

of its key

provisions

—

includ-

ing

the

creation

of a

statutory corporation, composed

of

politically inde-

pendent governors,

to run

radio

and

television

—

were brought into

force

only

in

1997. Since 1976 Doordarshan

has

allowed commercial advertise-

ments

and

privately sponsored programs

on its

channels.

In the

face

of the

government's

continued

reluctance

to

loosen

its

grip

on the

electronic media, some campaigners have sought recourse

to the

courts.

In one

case,

two

prominent citizens, whose application

to

start

a

pri-

vate

radio station

had

been turned down

by the

government, invited

the

Bombay

High

Court6

to

rule

the

government's monopoly

of the

airwaves

unconstitutional

on the

grounds that,

inter

alia,

it

infringed

fundamental

rights

to

free

expression7

and the

conduct

of any

occupation, trade,

or

busi-

ness.8

Another applicant asked

the

Supreme

Court

to

direct

the

government

to

submit

a

clear statement

of

policy

on the

question

of

news

and

other

broadcasts based on current affairs.9 No definitive orders were made in

either

of

these cases. However,

in a

judgment delivered

in

February 1995

in

yet

another case,

the

Supreme Court expressed

the

view that "monopoly

over

broadcasting, whether

by

government

or by

anybody else,

is

inconsis-

tent

with

the

free

speech right

of the

citizens."

The

court

went

on to

add:

[T]he

broadcasting media should

be

under

the

control

of the

public,

as

distinct

from

the

government...

It

should

be

operated

by a

public stat-

utory corporation

or

corporations,

as the

case

may be,

whose constitu-

tion

and

composition must

be

such

as to

ensure its/their impartiality

in

political, economic

and

social matters

and on all

other public issues.

It/

they

must

be

required

by law to

present news, views

and

opinions

in a

balanced

way

ensuring pluralism

and

diversity

of

opinions

and

views.

5.

Prasar

Bharati

(Broadcasting

Corporation

of

India)

Act

1990(Act

No. 25 of

1990).

6.

M.R.

Masani

&

P.C.

Chatterjeev.

Union

of

India,

Writ Petition

No.

2955

of

1987.

7.

Constitution

of

India,

Article

19(l)(a).

8.

Ibid.,

Article

19(l)(g).

9.

Common

Cause

&

Another'v.

Union

of

India,

Writ Petition

No. 742 of

1989.

211