Supreme Court lashes out at section of media for giving 'communal angle' to everything

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure and concern over the way a section of web portals, social networking sites and channels run fake news and harm reputations in absence of a regulatory mechanism.

Hearing a batch of petitions on Thursday, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana peeved over attempts by a section of the media to give communal colour to news and flagged lack of accountability of social media and digital platforms. The CJI said that they do not respond to complaints even from judges.

The Bench, which also comprised Justices Surya Kant and A S Bopanna, was hearing the petition was filed by Jamiat Ulama I Hind and the Peace Party, seeking appropriate direction to stop certain media sections from allegedly spreading fake news while linking the spread of COVID-19 with the Nizamuddin Markaz event in 2020.

The CJI said, “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,” adding "I don`t know, why everything is given communal angle. They (these social networking sites) only listen to powerful voices and write anything against judges, institutions without any accountability."

The CJI Ramana observed, "These social media sites and channels even don`t respond to us. They say we are not responsible. Institutions, judges, maligned on social media."

The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, senior lawyer appearing for the Union of India (UoI), told the Supreme Court that "please grant me two weeks we will file something". To this, the CJI said, "you have taken four adjournments to file affidavit Mr Mehta."

"Please grant me time for 2 weeks. We need to file a document," Mehta said, adding that the balance is between freedom of the press and the right of citizens 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."

The CJI observed many web portals are not under the control of anybody, asking Mehta, "If you go to Youtube, you can see there is much fake news and false information being circulated. Anyone can start doing it. You have regulatory mechanisms as far as papers and TV are concerned, but "are you suggesting that there is no regulatory mechanism?" 

The CJI observed, what is the use of powerful debates if only people who are powerful are allowed to get their matters redressed and the common man`s grievance is not addressed?

Pleading for listing the matter related to IT rules next week, Mehta said that these rules have been challenged in various High Courts, and orders are being passed.

Mehta, however, said that there is a regulatory regime now for SM and OTT platforms and referred to The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, adding that the Rules call for appointment of an Indian resident as the grievance redressal officer. 

The Rules have been challenged in various High Courts and the Centre has filed a petition seeking transfer of all these cases to the Supreme Court. He also cited the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021, saying it provides for two layers of self-regulation and then oversight by a government committee. 

On Mehta's transfer plea, the CJI said "as far as the transfer plea is concerned, let the same be listed along with this petition on the next date."

The Supreme Court directed that it will hear all the petitions challenging Cable Rules amendment 2021 and Digital media IT rules 2021, after six weeks. 

(With Agency Inputs)