- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Plea in Karnataka High Court For Framing Rules Against obscene content on electronic/print media
Plea in Karnataka High Court For Framing Rules Against obscene content on electronic/print media The Karnataka High Court (HC) received a plea from H Naghabhushan Rao (Petitioner) who has sought the response of the State Government to issue directions to frame statutory rules to prevent publication of indecent and obscene content as part of the news/any other program in the electronic and...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Plea in Karnataka High Court For Framing Rules Against obscene content on electronic/print media
The Karnataka High Court (HC) received a plea from H Naghabhushan Rao (Petitioner) who has sought the response of the State Government to issue directions to frame statutory rules to prevent publication of indecent and obscene content as part of the news/any other program in the electronic and print media.
The HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi issued notice to the State government, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, and State Police. It further directed the petitioners to implead the State government in the matter as respondents.
The petitioner also prayed in his plea that publication of obscene content should be made cognizable offenses which will have a reasonably deterrent punishment.
The State was directed by the Court to place on record whether it has issued any directions to State Police to refrain from leaking information collected during an investigation regarding any case to the press, public, or media.
The petitioner claimed that several media houses are publishing obscene video/ partially blurred nude photographs and videos of several incidents as part of news programs.
In the plea, it was further mentioned that "It is described as a sex scandal of several political leaders, religious leaders, and other celebrities. Though the program is shown as news it is shown as if it is an A-rated movie with sound effects graphics and repetitive dialogue delivery in thematic sound effects. While telecasting the news the sex video tapes are exhibited in a different form, sometimes as blurred photographs and sometimes with or without editing or without censoring."
It was further submitted by the petitioner that the Cable TV (Regulation) Act, 1995 does not contain any such provision or scheme dealing with the prevention of any mischievous publication.
Section 5 of the said Act deals with the provision that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service or any program unless such program conforms to the prescribed program code; there is no definition for program code.
The petition reads that "Every small detail which is discussed in the courtroom is flashed as breaking news. As long as it is telecasting the fact it can be treated as news but when the anchor starts to give their opinion as to how the investigation has to be, who has to be the accused, what is the evidence available with the Investigation officer, even before the charge-sheet is filed will influence the administration of justice and justice dispensation system."
The petitioner showed concern that there is a need to have strict regulations on the publication of content on print and electronic media. Certain concerns were also raised by the petitioner that in several cases the media is continuously reporting matters which are sub-judice before Courts.
It was added that there is a need for framing guidelines to prevent the electronic media from analyzing the sub-judice matters before the Court and direct State Police not to leak information collected during investigation regarding any case to the press, public, or media.
The next date of hearing is 7 June 2021.