The outcome of the Press Council of India's decision to challenge the Allahabad High Court gag order on reporting the movement of troops will be an acid test of how far the judiciary can go in curbing media freedoms. The court's order — which directed senior officials in the Home and I&B departments of the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure that no news on the subject is put out by the print and electronic media — was issued following the recent and sensational Indian Express report on the alleged panic in the civilian administration caused by the movement of two Army units towards New Delhi. It is true that the security of the State is one of the eight heads under which reasonable restrictions may be imposed on freedom of expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. But it is inexplicable how the further reporting of these troop movements is related to “official defence secrecy and security of the country” or why there should be a gag on this merely because the already published reports have caught “attention at the highest level in the defence as well as the Government.”
After all, the first reports of these ostensibly sensitive troop movements were based on briefings by Army sources themselves and published much earlier on a website as a routine story on “manoeuvres designed to test [the Army's] readiness for quick armed intervention in India's immediate neighbourhood.” Moreover, there is a vast difference, as PCI chairman Markandey Katju has suggested, between reporting troop movements in wartime, which could benefit the adversary and seriously jeopardise national security, and a ban that places such restrictions on standard operational manoeuvres in peace time. True, the Indian Express report, despite its many hedges and caveats, caused unnecessary consternation because of the exaggerated manner in which it was displayed. But the right of the newspaper or any other media organisation to report on this or any other sensitive matter cannot be questioned unless it clearly transgresses the Lakshman rekha of reasonable restrictions laid down in the Constitution. The higher judiciary, which has a long and commendable record of upholding the right to free expression, has generally recognised that this comes at a price. Such things as sensationalism, exaggeration, mistaken judgments and even false statements made honestly are likely to occur, or at least cannot be totally eliminated, in an environment in which free speech is guaranteed. The answer to this is to defend the right to free expression even as you criticise the specific instances in which it is abused. It is not to shoot the messenger.
Keywords: PCI, Markandey Katju, press freedom
Calling Media a "Messenger" is a problematic assumption. The
interpretation media can give to news is substantially different from
what a messenger does, who simply delivers the message. however, in case
of court prohibiting media from report a particular news which can have
both positive and negative impact considering the condition. I, truly,
feel that media needs some curbing specially when it comes to issue of
national security. We can't forget 2008 Mumbai attack, and how media deterred the security moves by giving every detail...
anyone who cross his limit has to be punished.There should not be any unqualified freedom which will lead to a chaos in the society.Press now a days tends to think themselves above all. But the truth is that the citizen is the ultimate in a democratic society.
Have to agree with the majority of the comments here that the Media
must be more responsible in reporting news, particularly when it comes
to issues of national security and national solidarity. Issues like
the movement of armed forces must be seen as sensitive areas in
reporting - whether in war-time or peace-time. With due respect to
Katju, we must stress upon the fact that the fundamental right to
freedom of expression of one citizen - like all other rights - must
not come at the cost of other equally fundamental rights like
security, peace and national solidarity.
Messenger should be a messenger not more than that.There is a line for messenger that should not be crossed,his duty is just delivery of message,not image over it and create panick for his own sake.If he cross that line as in this case he is no more a messenger,he can be awarded with watever punishment that is right for his act
Definitely shoot the messenger here. With great power comes great responsibility but EXPRESS here seems to shoulder the responsibility of spreading only sensation. This is not done.Press council of India must some take action now .
Fetter of any sorts should not allowed on press freedom or freedom of expression. Such freedom is definitive and absolute. Even while all the professions are against the sensationalism in news, all the innate instincts of man are to avidly here or read it. There is always an element of betrayal in this dichotomy of standards. Any attempt to gag the press is ruinous for democracy and suicidal for the country. Let those who gang themselves against the freedom of expression realise that they tend to shoot themselves in the foot.
In this case,Shoot the messenger. Indian Express by printing this aticle, it has lost its moral values. High time for media to start weed out process with in itself. What is press council of india doing? Should have hitted indian express with hammer. By not acting against such twisted article, press community lost it trust from faithful readers.
Whenever the press transgresses its powers and looses sight of its own responsibilities, its natural that some other agency (legislature, executive or judiciary) will come forward to remind the same to the press. Freedom of press is not unlimited as per the article 19-1(a) of the constitution and reasonable restrictions can be put from time to time. In the given case, the decision of the Allahabad High Court deserves praise as I fail to understand what public interest can be served by reporting of troop movements within the country or at borders. Isn't the newspapers/channels sensible enough to understand the sensitivity of such movements? Proliferation of media, fight for trp's/market share and commoditisation of news are the real reasons behind publishing of sensational stories which serves no real public interest. Such tendencies should be curbed as soon as possible.
The only way in which a messenger can be "shot" is when readers/viewers turn away from that messenger. That is nature's best deterrent to irresponsible journalism. We do not need officials in high places to determine for us what is acceptable media behavior. In a country as diverse (in every sense of the word) as India, there are differing tastes & boundaries of acceptable behavior. Could a committee of few decide for the rest of us what our tastes ought to be? We need to wean ourselves away from this top-down sense of information & opinion flow. Granted it is a relic of the past wherein maharajas/sultans issued diktats on a variety of issues. However, it is disheartening to see that same mentality prevail in this day. Montek Ahluwalia may think tea is our national drink but there are others who'd respectfully disagree. Could he then impose his preference on others simply because he has power?! If we the people thought that the Express did a bad job, guess what? We'll stop reading it.
press has to be more responsible in matter of national security.movement of troops or activities of troops should not be sensationalised.our neighbouring countries have unpredictable political situation.preparedness of security forces is important,their movements or activities should not questioned unnecessarily,secrecy of troops activities gives them advantage over enemies.if we compare our neighbours china,Pakistan,or Myanmar our press has more freedom of expression.fundamental rights are basic features in democracy,but not at the cost of national security.
Justice Markandey Kataju has rightly challenged the decision of the Allahabad high court,which is bent upon to curb the freedom of press. Justice Kataju has done many good things in the Press Council of India and as part of further improvement,Justice Kataju has asked first mediapersonsto develop their own ethics.But one thing he has done is bad that Justice Katju has asked judiciary to give guidelines to media and mediapersons for applying freedom of expression!One thing is clear in the Indian context because of non-enactment of Judges transparency Act,the judiciary, rght from bottom to top,want to usurp every things under its domain manily because of weak executive and legislature.Recently it is being observed that Judges speak too much in the form of observations,why do not put these observations in writings?Judges are also transgressing the Constitution and Acts by implementing them in worong manner.
My repeated experience with the press has been that it is very keen on ensuring transparency in decision making, access to personnel, and checks and balances of power ensured through independent reviews. However, when it comes to overseeing the behavior of its own, the Fourth Estate, has jealously guarded its right and ability to supervise itself. That does not seem to be a reasonable claim. It is true that there are many reputed journalists. But that does not compensate for too many tainted journalists who have crossed the Lakshman Rekah of ethical probity, ideological neutrality, and professional integrity. If the press is keen on establishing its credibility, it should welcome independent oversight from the public to ensure, fair, accurate responsible reporting.
Principally i would agree. But I think the press in India has lost that trust. It is up to the press/media to earn the trust back before we can remove all restrictions on them.
The press should vigorously challenge the Allahabad High Court order. Rather than making it an extreme exception to curb press freedom and freedom of expression, the courts are often too quick to restrict these freedoms on dubious grounds. "Hurting religious sentiments" is another category that comes to mind. Despotism will rule without a hard stand from the courts in this regard. We can already see this in West Bengal where the police machinery and the state are violating fundamental rights. The newspapers are already timid in their reporting - such as oblique references to "certain community" and not reporting at all on controversial topics. These sort of gag orders will further strip the media of any remaining instinct on investigative reporting.
Press cannot have untrammeled rights. This news beast that is prowling all over needs to be contained and check s on its limits are essential for the nation as well as the society.
When the messenger (Press) acts as the judge, jury and executioner, the messenger shoud be shot. Whne self-opniated editors with an eye on sensationalism and reader numbers twist the information to caise panic, I am all for shooting the "messenger".
Please Email the Editor