Sweeping powers given in the proposed bill to authorised officers are prone to misuse
Sweeping powers given in the proposed bill to authorised officers are prone to misuse
NEW DELHI: Media and legal experts are apprehensive about the proposed Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2006, primarily due to the powers it grants to ‘authorised officers’ for inspection, search, seizure and prosecution of ‘violating’ television channels, content providers, cable services or direct-to-home (DTH) platforms. As a media insider put it, such sweeping powers to ‘authorised officers’ could hurt any TV channels.
However, “those with clout could escape”, he added. Since authorised officers could act against service providers on a complaint made by any individual, industry representatives feared misuse of such power. “Even competition could engineer complaint to stop a programme on a rival TV channel, for instance,” argued noted lawyer Pavan Duggal. Authorised officers have been described in the draft bill as a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate or a commissioner of police within “his local limits of jurisdiction”.
But, there’s room for including others who have not been defined in the draft bill. It states, “authorised officer could include any other officer notified by the Central government or state government or the Broadcasting Regulatory Authority”.
The draft bill points out that every authorised officer will have the power to inspect, search and seize equipment under section 24 of this Act. Section 24 states that if any authorised officer has reason to believe or is directed by the licensing authority or the Central government that the provisions of section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of this Act or other terms and conditions of a licence for providing a service are being breached, he may seize the equipment of the service provider.
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 deal with registration of channels; compliance with the content code; exercise of government powers in extraordinary circumstances like war or natural calamity; mandatory sharing of certain sport rights with Prasar Bharati; and compulsory transmission of some of the public broadcasters’ channels. The draft bill does not get into the specifics of how and why, but it can be interpreted that there is a possibility of inspection, search and seizure of equipment in case of vulgarity/obscenity on channels, in times of war or calamity, an investigative story or a scoop which results in unrest in a community, and even if a remark made on any channel causes some kind of a social stir.
Prominent media lawyer Pratibha Singh pointed out that a bill like this “is a cause of concern” as it would “curtail the independence of the media”. She said.
Media policy analyst N Bhaskara Rao, says that some of the clauses in the draft bill are “nothing short of outrageous”.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}