The Delhi High Court recently upheld an order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting prohibiting transmission of programmes over the television channel ‘Comedy Central’ for 10 days, for broadcasting “obscene” content “denigrating women”. On November 28, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court order until further hearing. The Ministry over the past few years has issued several such warnings, advisories and orders of prohibition of content in exercise of its powers under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. This legislation was enacted in “light of the haphazard mushrooming of cable television networks… which was perceived in many quarters as a ‘cultural invasion’ since the programmes were predominantly western...” In its Annual Report 2011-12, the Ministry claimed to play the role of “looking after the interests of women and children who are vulnerable to [the] pervading impact of satellite television”. The Act prescribes a vague set of standards relating to good taste, decency, obscenity, content denigrating women and children and so on, which broadcasters must not breach. In enforcing the Act, the Ministry set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by its Additional Secretary, with representatives from other Ministries. The IMC, on receiving complaints, gives its recommendations to the Ministry for action. The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council is a self-regulatory body that also issues directions or refers cases to the Ministry for further action.
To give examples of the Ministry’s orders, out of a list of hundreds: the TV channel Bindass was ordered to run an apology scroll for seven days for telecasting obscene visuals in the programme, ‘Emotional Athyachar’; TLC received warnings for programmes such as ‘Get Out’, ‘Bridget’s Sexiest Beaches’ and so on, for obscene content; Star World and FX received warnings for obscene visuals in ‘Dexter’, ‘Two and a Half Men’, ‘How I Met Your Mother’, ‘Mad Men’, and so on. ‘The Wonder Years’ received an advisory because the show “lacked good taste and decency and [was] child denigrating”. It may be noted that both the IMC and the Ministry pass bureaucratic orders without due regard to creative freedom and the modern ethos on constitutional issues of free speech and expression, with minimal interference from the judiciary. Therefore, there is little oversight or transparency in this process. Second, the criteria for making value judgments on the content, such as in terms of decency, good taste and vulgarity, are vague and open to misuse by those keen on parochial cultural policing. Lastly, the Ministry’s rhetoric of regulation seems to be predominantly protectionist and paternalistic in approach. Such governance tends only to curtail rather than enhance creative freedom and choice.
