human rights and media
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
1/19
Human Rights and media
AMULYA GOWDA
1RV08AT003
APARNA BASKARAN
1RV08AT006
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
2/19
Human Rights
Human Rights are the rights we enjoy because we are human
beings
Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human right says All beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights
Man has not only a right to live, but to live with human dignity.
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
3/19
Media
Media are what we call as the fourth estate of democracy. They
include
Newspapers and magazines
Radio
Television
Film
Internet medium
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
4/19
Constitutional status of media
Media represents ordinary citizens
Media persons do not enjoy extra constitutional provisions in India
Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution which guarantees Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression to all its citizens is the basic right
on which Indian media exists and depends
The constitution does not make a reference to freedom of press or
media separately
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
5/19
Reasonable restrictions on media
Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution empowers the state to impose
reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression on
the following grounds
Sovereignty and Integrity of India
Security of the state
Friendly relations with foreign countries
Public order
Preserving decency and morality
Contempt of court and defamation or incitement to an offence
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
6/19
THE Press is not immune from
The ordinary forms of taxation
The application of the general laws relating to industrial relations
The regulation of condition of service of the employees
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
7/19
But it would not be legitimate for the State:
To subject the press to laws which take away or abridge the
freedom of expression or would curtail circulation or would
undermine its independence by driving it to seek Govt aid
To single out the press for laying upon its excessive and prohibitive
burdens which would restrict the circulation, impose penalty on its
right to choose the instruments for its exercising or to seek an
alternative media
To impose specific tax upon the press deliberately calculated to
limit its circulation
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
8/19
When the constitutionality of an enactment is specially directed
against the press is challenged the court has to test it by the
standard of substantive and procedural reasonableness
An enactment of this nature , the Punjab Special Power (press) Act
1956 came up before the Supreme Court in Virendra vs. State of
Punjab
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
9/19
Virendra v/s State of Punjab
Constitution interest of general public - Sections 2 and 3 of Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956
and Articles 19 (1), 19 (2) and 19 (6) of Constitution of India - whether restrictions imposed by
Sections 2 and 3 can be said to be reasonable restrictions within meaning of Articles 19 (2) and
19 (6) - notifications under Section 2 (1) (a) prohibiting publishing of any material relating to
save Hindi agitation or those under Section 3 (1) imposing ban against entry and circulation ofpapers in State of Punjab published from New Delhi - operative part of notification prevents
petitioner from publishing any matter relating to save Hindi agitation - petitioners published
criticisms and news concerning agitation which according to them are fair and legitimate -
petitioners are at liberty to publish all other matters and free to circulate papers in all other
parts of territory of India - restrictions reasonably necessary in interest of public order Section
2 confirmed power, exercise of which is conditioned by positive requirement of satisfaction of
authority - necessity for making Order for specific purposes mentioned in Section - effect of the
exercise of which is to remain in operation for limited period only which is liable to be
modified or rescinded upon a representation being made - cannot be characterised as
unreasonable - no time limit for operation of Order made under Section 3 - no provision made
for any representation to State Government - absence of safeguards in Section 3 makes
provisions unreasonable Apex Court allowed petition challenging Section 3 and dismissed
petition challenging Section 2.
PETITIONER: VIRENDRAVs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB ANDANOTHER(and connected petition)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:06/09/1957
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
10/19
Constitutional Amendments
In 1976 the Parliament enacted the Prevention of Objectionable
Matter Act 1976 with rigorous provisions and in permanent form
In April 1977 , the Janata Government repealed this act.
Subsequently the position was further buttressed by inserting a new
Article in the Constitution itself Article 361- A by the Constitution
(44th
Amendment) Act ,1978
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
11/19
Recent examples of NHRC issuing notices on the basis
of media reports
NHRC asks Kerala govt. to pay monetary relief to the victims of
Endosulfan
NHRC calls for Karnataka governments report on the allegations of
continuance of manual scavenging
NHRC calls for report on high fluoride level in drinking water in
Jharkhand
Notice to Police commissioner of Pune for alleged police firing on
agitating farmers
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
12/19
Cases where media persons show disrespect to
Human Rights
Photographing without prior permission
Naming the victims of rape
Forgetting the fact that people have a right to privacy
Defaming and not publishing rejoinders
Giving unfair publicity at the cost of fair play
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
13/19
Role of media in protecting Human rights
Creating awareness about the concept and importance of HR
Media should place an important and ethical role at all levels and
in all parts of the country and the world
Their aim should be to inform and not to sensationalize.
Report should not lead to more of HR violations
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
14/19
Case Studies
CASE 1:Baba Nirmal V/s Yashwanth singh
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.
LOCATION : High court of Delhi.
DECIDED ON: 14/09/2012.
APPALANT: Nirmaljit Singh Narula
RESPONDANT: Yashwant Singh & Ors
JUDGE: Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir
SUBJECT: Civil ; Constitution
ACTS/ RULES: - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rule 1- Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rule 2
- Constitution Of India - Article 19 :
- Constitution Of India - Article 19(1) (a)
- Constitution Of India - Article 19(2)
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
15/19
BRIEF:
As per the Plaintiff, Nirmaljit Singh Narula popularly known as 'Nirmal Baba' is a spiritual guide,
renowned for his spiritual discourses. The preaching emphasizes on the values of true, selfless
prayer and devotion to one's duties. The plaintiff teaches his followers to spiritually evolve theirlives by believing in the ultimate powers of the religion they follow. As per the Plaintiff, the
plaintiff has lacks of followers in India and abroad.
The plaintiff started holding Holy Samagams (congregation) where the followers/devotees come to
hear his spiritual discourses and seek his blessings.
As per the plaintiff, The Defendants have authored and/ or published defamatory articles written
by themselves and others along with defamatory comments posted by the third parties about the
plaintiff on the Defendants websitewww.bhadas4media.com in order to disparage and malign the
reputation of the plaintiff.
PLEA:
To remove the defamatory articles and publications from the website.
A charge of Rs. 21 lakh for the damages caused.
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
16/19
JUDGEMENT:
The court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for the grant of a conditional
injunction.
The defendants are accordingly restrained from licensing, writing, publishing, hosting or
advertising any defamatory material against the plaintiff on their website or through any
other print/electronic media to defame the reputation of the plaintiff
Subject to the condition that the plaintiff also restrains himself in future from giving any
kind of absurd or illogical solutions to his disciples and others, and, confines his discoursesto all such kind of teachings through which the life of common man can improve and
improve in the right direction.
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
17/19
CASE 2: Union of India v/s Cinemart foundation.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.
LOCATION : Supreme court of India.
DECIDED ON: 22/07/1992.
APPALANT: Union of India
RESPONDANT: Cinemart Foundation
JUDGE: A. M. Ahmadii and M. M. Punchhi, JJ.
SUBJECT: Media and communication ; Constitution
ACTS/ RULES: - Constitution of India - Article 14
- Constitution of India - Article 21
- Constitution of India - Article 19(1)
- Constitution of India - Article 25
- Constitution of India - Article 226
- Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 5B
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
18/19
BRIEF:
Shri Tapari Bose, Managing Trustee of the respondent trust, had produced a documentary
film on the Bhopal Gas Disaster titled "Beyond Genocide".
This film was awarded the Golden Lotus, being the best non-feature film of1987.
It was also certified U by the national censorship board.
The respondent contended that at the time of presentation of awards the Central Minister for
Information & Broadcasting had made a declaration that the award winning short films will
be telecast on Doordarshan.
The respondent submitted for telecast his film to Doordarshan but Doordarshan refused to
telecast the same on the ground : "the contents being outdated do not. have relevance now
for the telecast".
The respondent represented to the Minister for Information & Broadcasting, but to no avail.
He, therefore, filed the writ petition, being Civil Writ No. 212 of1989, challenging the
refusal on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the same.
-
7/29/2019 Human rights and media
19/19
The grounds for refusal that can be culled out from the pleadings were :
- The film is out-dated.
- It has lost its relevance.
- It lacks moderation and restraint.
- It is not fair and balanced.
- Political parties have been raising various issues concerning the tragedy.
- Claims for compensation by victims are sub-judice.
JUDGEMENT:
The learned Additional Solicitor General was not able to point out how it could be said
that the film was not consistent with the accepted norms set out earlier. Doordarshan
being a State controlled agency funded by public funds could not have denied access to
the screen to the respondent except on valid grounds.
The appeals of the defendants fail and are dismissed with costs.