Human Rights and media

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.

Media
Media are what we call as the fourth estate of democracy. They include Newspapers and magazines Radio Television Film Internet medium

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

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

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

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

 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

Virendra v/s State of Punjab

PETITIONER: VIRENDRA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER(and connected petition) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/1957

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 of papers 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.

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

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

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

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

Case Studies
CASE 1: Baba Nirmal V/s Yashwanth singh

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.

LOCATION : DECIDED ON: High court of Delhi. 14/09/2012.

APPALANT:
RESPONDANT: JUDGE: SUBJECT:

Nirmaljit Singh Narula

Yashwant Singh & Ors Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir 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)

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 their lives 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 website www.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.

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 discourses to all such kind of teachings through which the life of common man can improve and improve in the right direction.

CASE 2: Union of India v/s Cinemart foundation.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.

LOCATION : DECIDED ON: Supreme court of India. 22/07/1992.

APPALANT:
RESPONDANT: JUDGE: SUBJECT: ACTS/ RULES:

Union of India
Cinemart Foundation A. M. Ahmadii and M. M. Punchhi, JJ. Media and communication ; Constitution - 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

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 of 1987. 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 of 1989, 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.

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.