View of News Broadcasting Media & Misinformation: an Assessment of Viability of Various Regulatory Mechanisms in India

10  Download (0)

Full text



News Broadcasting Media & Misinformation: An Assessment of Viability of Various Regulatory Mechanisms in India

Ishika Choudhary1 Asish Mishra2 Abstract

In recent times, India is not only dealing with pandemic of Covid-19 but also dealing with another kind of pandemic which is far more dangerous to the citizens of India. And, still there is no progress made to prevent this another kind of pandemic which is brought in the nation by news broadcasting media with the virus of “misinformation”. In democratic country news media plays important role as it is considered as fourth pillar of democracy, but nowadays, it is seen that news media houses are more interested in giving misinformation to make their news content more sensational and to promote indirectly political parties’ agendas. And, the self-regulatory mechanism is failing to maintain the ethical standards required in such profession. This paper attempts to analyze various regulatory mechanism to see best possible mechanism to prevent this pandemic. In this research paper doctrinal and descriptive research methodologies have been used. And it can be concluded that more balanced and co- regulatory mechanism can be most feasible to held responsible news media houses and to bring the standard ethical values which are required in this profession.

Keywords – News Broadcasting Media, Misinformation, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Self-Regulation, State- Regulation & Co-Regulation.


With a potential viewership base of a whopping one hundred and thirty crore people with access to some form of media vide print, broadcast and online platforms, the Indian media industry possesses a gargantuan power of influence, on the manner in which people receive information, the way that information is disseminated among the masses, as well as the ripples it creates within the minds of its viewers. Even at a time when the print media is seeing a steady decline across other parts of the world, it has nearly doubled its reach in India. India’s pay-TV market enjoys one of the largest subscriber bases in the world at present, with its number rising from approximately 75 million in 2007 to about 130 million in 20123.This kind of explosive growth has raised an imperative question in the mind of intellectuals, bureaucrats and the general masses alike. Has the Indian media industry bitten off more than it can chew? Because like the mighty kryptonian God Superman, rightly said, with great power comes great responsibility. And this is a

1 Advocate, Rajasthan High Court.

2 Advocate, Orissa High Court.

3Confederation of India Industry, India Entertainment and Media Outlook 2012, (March 20, 2022),



question if the media industry, in the process of harnessing such great power has lost its head to the floodgates of chaos that ensues with the coming of such power.

Citizens today, often complain about the media exceeding its brief, invading the privacy of people and large-scale misrepresentation while the government is perplexed about the sway media has on people and is constantly on the lookout to manage that influence, much less by imposing strong ethics and code of conduct and much more by twisting the narrative in its favour where necessary. To hold the discussion for a microscopic view on the issue, we have carved out our area of interest as the non-entertainment News and current affairs media as it possesses substantially greater power to influence people on a variety of sensitive issues which can have widespread ramifications as their aftermath.

There have been many incidents, disruptive enough, to raise in the mind of the audience, the question if the media has time and again, exceeded its brief. Right from the reporting and coverage resulting in the parallel investigation of the Sushant Singh Rajput case to the recent controversial how run by a regional news channel, Sudarshan TV which discussed how Muslims have been ‘infiltrating’ the civil services,4 misinformation floating around the dispute of Gyanvapi mosque5.

Furthermore, I& B Ministry forewarned TV news channel to stop using “unverified claims” and “fabricated pictures” during debate shows and also cited the examples of such coverages during the Jahangirpuri protest and Russia- Ukraine Conflict.6

Therefore, it is pertinent to explore the avenues that are open to create a structure that retains the freedom of the media while at the same time ensuring strong ethical standards and responsible attitude amongst the people engaged in the business.

Freedom of Speech and Expression: How absolute is it?

The freedom of expression is a fundamental right7 and without freedom of expression, the democracy of any country will be lifeless. Amartya Sen has argued that “freedom of expression is the pre-condition of social and economic development as transparency and open communication are necessary to assess that if everyone is getting benefit from socio-economic development.”8

The right to freedom of expression is given under both international instruments9 and the Constitution of India. This freedom is given on the idea that individuals should be allowed to freely communicate and impart his ideas. Also, in the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of

4A. Vaidyanathan, Ministerial Panel Advised Changes in Sudarshan T V Progamme: Top Court, NDTV NEWS (March 05,2020), court-2305398.

5WebQoof Team, WebQoof Recap: Of Misinformation Around Gyanvapi, Assam Floods, and More, THE QUINT (May 25, 2022) inflation-assam-floods.

6 Anupriya Chatterjee , I&B Ministry warns mainstream TV news against using ‘unparliamentary language and hyperbole’ , THE PRINT (May 26 , 2022) using-unparliamentary-language-and-hyperbole/927909/.

7INDIAN CONST., art 19 cl. (1) (a).

8AMARTYA SEN, DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM (Oxford University Press 1999).

9UDHR, art.19 & ICCPR, art.19.



Delhi10, Supreme Court held that “the right to propagate one’s ideas is a part of the right to freedom of expression and every citizen has the right to publish, disseminate and circulate their ideas.” and media houses in India run on this principle. Also, on the basis of Art.19 (1) (a)11, news broadcasting media always retaliate the state interference by supporting and propagating the mechanism of self- regulation.12 No one can deny that self-regulation mechanism is to an extent able to maintain the sanctity of freedom of speech and expression and shut the door for other pillars of democracy from influencing the content on news channel in India. But it also can’t be denied that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute freedom and the state can impose reasonable restriction as per Art.19 (2) of the Constitution. And the restrictions are exhaustive in nature13 that means state cannot put the restrictions on this freedom except on the eight grounds mentioned in Art.19 (2).14 Also, under section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Central Government is empowered to regulate or prohibit the transmission of any channel or programme on these eight grounds.15

Furthermore, such reasonable restrictions are also imposed on the broadcasting media through various provision in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Customs Act 1952, the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, the National Security Act, 1980, The HIV/AIDS Act, 2017, The Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, etc.16

So, it can be seen that so many statues are there to restrict the freedom of broadcasting media indirectly and it can be considered that there are enough Statutes present to penalize the individuals who are creating, spreading and using misinformation on the news channel in India. If it is so then why epidemic of fake news is spreading like anything and people are misguided by news channels with false information.17It means that even after protecting the freedom of speech and expression of broadcasting media by self- regulation and putting reasonable restrictions by State on such freedom indirectly in the name of state regulation is not enough. As, the Co- regulation can be a way through which balance can be maintained between the freedom under Art.19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions under Art.19 (2) of the Constitution of India. In 2011 Ex- Chairman of Press Council of India retired Justice Markandeyu Katju suggested that instead of self- regulatory mechanism, an independent body like the Press Council of India can be established for regulation of broadcasting news media.18

10Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.

11INDIAN CONST., art 19 cl. (1) (a).

12Simran, Regulation of Media in India – A brief overview, PRS INDIA (May 21, 2022),

13Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523.

14INDIAN CONST., art 19 cl. (2).

15Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, § 20.

16 CCG, Report on Hate Speech Laws In India, CCG NLU DELHI (April ,2018)

17Dolar Poppat, There is pandemic of fake news and hate on Social media. You can help fight it, THE TIMES OF INDIA (May 23, 2020) and-hate-on-social-media-you-can-help-fight-it/.

18The Hindu, For Media, self-regulation I not always enough: Justice Katju THE HINDU (May 23,2020)



Also, in the landmark case of the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of West Bengal19, the Supreme Court held that “the broadcasting media should be under the control of the public as distinct from Government. This is the command implicit in Article 19 (1) (a). It should be operated by a public statutory corporation or corporations, as the case may be, whose constitution and composition must be such as to ensure its/ their impartiality in political, economic and social matters and on all other public issues. It/they must be required by law to present news, views and opinions in a balanced way ensuring pluralism and diversity of opinions and views.

It/they must provide equal access to all the citizens and groups to avail of the medium.”20 So, in this case even the Supreme Court highlighted that the self- regulating authority can be established with backing of state and the news broadcasting media can be very well regulated by balancing out the freedom of speech and restrictions mentioned under Art.19 of the Constitution of India.

Regulation of News Media in India

The media is always considered as fourth pillar of democracy because they are the watchdog who keeps their eyes on the working of other three branches of democracy.21 The transparency and accountability are the vital principles of democracy22as without them the democracy will be hollow and meaningless. And to maintain these two principles, the media must report every news and current affairs of the country with utmost responsibility and sincerity. Also, to let the media work properly in the country, it is important that their freedom of speech and expressions are duly protected by avoiding state interference as it is also seen in history that government regulation did gag the freedom of media by censorship.23

In India, unlike press media, the news broadcasting media is allowed to self-regulate and till date there is no statutory authority to regulate and control them.24And, the news channels in the country are regulated by self- regulatory mechanism as currently there are few associations who have their own authority to entertain complaints in case of violation of code of ethics devised by them to maintain the integrity and responsibility of various news channels towards the citizens of India.

The News Broadcasting Association (NBA) was established with 29 broadcasters as members and currently 77 news channels are under this association.25 Along with the NBSA, the Code of Ethics was also devised by NBA and based on this code, the content on the news channels are regulated and controlled and in cases of non-compliance, complaints can be filed to NBSA.26 The NBSA has the power to warn, admonish, censure,

19The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of West Bengal 1995 (2) SCC (161).


21 MA Mir, The Role of Media in Indian Democracy, 6 (1) IJRAR 584-588 (2019).

22Id. at 586.

23 Dr. Madhavi Ravikumar, The big debate on Media Self- regulation in India: Scope and limitations,2 IJCSR (2014).

24Simran, supra note 12.

25 News Broadcasters’ Association, 14th ANNUAL REPORT (2010-2011).

26News Broadcasters Association, Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards,



express disapproval and fine the broadcaster upto one lakh rupees.27 For example recently in Rakul Preet case, NBSA found that 9 news channels were at fault and directed to them individually to take down such misinformation about Rakul Preet Singh and asked them to air public apology for tarnishing her image with such unverified and incorrect information.28 Also, in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput, NBSA ordered 5 news channels for showing insensitive and exaggerated information about his death and were also order to remove the video showing his dead body in unethical way.29

In 2018, the NBSA ordered the Republic T.V. to air the apology for passing unjustified and unwarranted comments in the programme named “Jignesh Flop Show”.30But the Republic T.V. didn’t air apology and afterwards left the membership of the association.

And after one year or so, a new association named “News Broadcaster Federation”

(“NBF”) was established in July 2019 on the basis of self-regulatory mechanism and unlike NBA, many regional channels are also members of this association.31 On the same line of NBA, NBF is ready to establish its own Code of Ethics to regulate the contents on the news channels of its members. Apart from, these two associations, Broadcast Editors’

Association is also there to regulate the news T.V. Channels.32 Since, there is no statute to regulate the news channel or to create the independent body to regulate the news channels and then there is absolute freedom to create and join one or the other Regulatory association. Also, there are news channel which do not hold the membership of any association and self-regulate themselves. And NBSA and NBF do not have any jurisdiction in the case of any misinformation being circulated on the news channel whose broadcaster is not the member of these association like in the case of “UPSC Jihad”, NBSA pointed out that they can’t act upon the complaint against the Sudrashan T. V. as they are not member of NBA.33

Different Regulatory Regimes and their Relevance

With the term “regulation”, the first authority which comes in the mind is “state” as from the very beginning it is considered that state is the only one present to regulate and control the conduct of individuals or any association. But, in reality there are some private organizations which are regulating and controlling the conducts of their members. The self-regulation is the system which is evolved with the Lex Mercotria (merchant law).34

27News Broadcasting Standards Regulations, 2008, cl 7 (1).

28Live Law News Network ,NBSA Slams TV Channels For Vilifying Reports Against Rakul Preet Singh; Zee Asked To Apologize; Videos To Be Taken Down ( May 23, 2020) , rakul-preet-singh-zeenews-timesnow-indiatoday-aajtak-abpnews-newsnation-167071.

29The Wire Staff, Sushant Singh Rajput: NBSA fines Aaj Tak Rs.1 Lakh for violating Code of Ethics, THE WIRE (May 23, 2020)

30The Wire Staff, No Apology from Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami for Misrepresenting Despite NBSA Order’, THE WIRE (May 24, 2022)

31Ammu Joseph, supra note 5.

32Simran, supra note 12.

33A Vaidyanath, “Let this Message Go to Media ….”: Supreme court on Sudarshan TV row, NDTV NEWS (May 24, 2022), 2297560.

34Michael Latzer et al., Selbst- und Ko-Regulierungim Mediamatiksektor , Alternative Regulierungsformen Zwischen Staat und Markt Wiesbaden: Westdeuscher Verlag (2002).



And with the changing dynamics of governance, self-regulation is getting popular in the field of media regulation. However, self- regulation’s limitations have given scope for the development of co-regulation system, which is more preferred nowadays in regulation of media. These three types of regulations are discussed below-

1) State backed Regulation

Traditionally, it was seen that the broadcasting media, in the state, was governed and regulated by state itself. But, with fear of shrinking freedom of speech and expression, the state- regulation was retaliated by media houses in many countries.35 As, the function of news media is to provide unaltered and true information to the citizens and to make sure that political agendas are not only presented by them. The trust in the media by the citizens should be maintained otherwise the principles of democracy in any country will be compromised. Also, in the past it was observed that the state- regulation did do more harm than the good.36

In India, the state- regulation is not present directly and completely in the field of news broadcasting media but there are some statues which are regulating the content of news channels. Such as, five articles in the Constitution of India, 18 sections in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 18 sections in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Programme Code and Advertisement Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and there are some provisions in special Acts.37

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 was enacted to regulate the operation of cable television operators and the content they broadcast and also licensing framework is given under the Act. Under Section 20 of the Act, Central Government can regulate and prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of programme which is violating the Programme Code and advertisement code prescribed under the Cable Television Network rules,1994.38 And Rule 6 of the Rules, 1994 i.e., Programme Code, do prohibit all the kinds of misinformation on news channel in India.39 Also, there are many provisions in IPC to penalize the action of the individuals who are indulging in disrupting the peace and integrity of the nation or defaming any other individual or hurting the sentiments of any religious group.40

It is considered that even if the state regulation in India is indirect then also many news channels are influenced by political groups and those who are trying to maintain transparency and truth in the content on news channels are facing unnecessary defamation charges filed by politicians and are harassed under the existing statutes. For instance, The NDTV, the Citizen and The Caravan are facing defamation cases and the Wire is facing many defamation cases by businessmen

35Hans J. Kleinsteuber , The Internet between regulation and governance (2004).

36Dr. Madhavi Ravikumar, supra note 23.

37Bharat Bhushan, News in Monochrome Journalism in India, 42(2) Index on Censorship 36-42 (2013).

38Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, § 20 (3).

39Cable Television Network rules,1994, r 6.

40Geeta Seshu, Does Censorship Ever Work? 47 Economic and Political Weekly 19-22 (2012).



who are having political backing.41Also, in the country where broadcasting is state regulated, the citizens refrain from trusting in anything telecasted in news. But, without the indirect state regulation, the media in India will be like unruly horse.

2) Self-Regulation

The concept of self-regulation was developed in U.S., when the industry associations decided to regulate their own conducts with the code of conduct devised by them.42 The code of conduct is self-defined moral rules which need to be observed by the members of association. In European Union, member countries mostly have press councils to self-regulate the press media and till date the self- regulation is working perfectly without state intervention.43The freedom of speech and expression is protected by the self- regulation of broadcasting media. Self- regulation is based on the understanding that journalists are in better position to understand the need, ethical values, practices and problems in the journalism than the legislators and judicial authorities.44 But the self-regulation is also criticized because authorities can’t be penalizing the members for their gross misconduct and powerful media house owners create negative impact on the decision-making process.45

3) Co-Regulation

Looking at the two ends of a spectrum, where regulation by state implies unnecessary and unjust curb on the freedom of press and media houses and on the other hand, self-regulation overemphasises the capacity of the industry to regulate itself and adhere to a strict code of ethics keeping in mind the interest of public at large. Therefore, there needs to be a middle ground, equally accessible by all the players and a regulatory system that thrives on mutual cooperation and trust.

A co-regulatory framework, provides a platform to all the stake holders, to participate and contribute, which subsequently results in a much more sophisticated form of regulation which is neither completely under state command and neither purely self-regulatory in nature.46 The term co-regulation is indicative of joint responsibilities of all the players in the market.

The adoption of co-regulation can be a little unsettling first, equally for the state, where it must divulge its law making power in order to harmonise the chips on the table and at the same time, market players and persons involved in the business, used to self-regulating themselves, would not be very receptive to the idea of

41Siddharth Varadarjan, In dark Times for the Indian media, the Audience could hold the key, THE WIRE (Dec.29 ,2020) ,

42Hans J. Kleinsteuber, supra note 35.

43Danilo A. Leornardi, Self-Regulation and the Print Media: Codes and Analysis of Codes in Use by Press Councils in Countries of the EU (2004).

44M. Haraszti, The media self-regulation guidebook: all questions and answers, Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2008).

45Simran, supra note 12.

46CT Marsden, Co-and self-regulation in European media and Internet sectors: The results of Oxford University's study www. self-regulation’,9 Haywards Health 187-195 (2004).



various players having a say in the mode of their conducting business.47 The adoption of co-regulation would simultaneously entail professionals to be brought within a regulatory fold and the resulting regulatory fold would be a concoction of the older dispensations in the form of Self and State regulatory systems.

For a co-regulatory system to work it must involve the confidence of all parties involved and in order to win the support of professionals, their inputs must be guaranteed.48Similarly, for the state to let go of its law-making power, its continued involvement would need to be ensured, albeit in a completely redefined manner. And finally, in order to gain the trust of the general masses, the co- regulatory body must be open and welcoming enough to the interests of the citizen and continuously striving to improve the standards while upholding the existing standards.

But in order for a co-regulatory system to work, there are certain imperative considerations to be taken into consideration. By reason of the involvement of the multitude of players and the number of regulatory variables involved in the equation, for the situation to be truly fair, certain parameters must be necessarily determined beforehand.

The first and foremost consideration should be that of the funding of the co- regulatory regime. Co regulatory institutions, where they do not have access to sufficient and mandatory funding, will not be able to meet the standards of accountability, transparency and due process.49

The second weighing consideration is that co-regulation has an ambivalent relationship with fundamental right vis-a-vis freedom of expression.50If the United states’ jurisprudence with regards to fundamental rights is taken, it is a negative right, i.e., such right can be enjoyed when there is absence of state interference.51 But if we look at it as a positive right, then private entities can pose an equal danger to exercising of such right. Because co-regulatory institutions would not be public bodies, they may be even less accountable.

The third and most pressing concern is the legitimacy of the co-regulatory institution. To achieve a balance, it is absolutely essential that the interests of the industry representatives and the no industry members must be harmonised.52 Industry professionals should be a minority on boards, and seats must be share between other players including government representatives and people representing various communities and cultural identities alongwith fair representation of women and LGBTQ members of the society.

The UK government in the December 2000 published a white paper setting out plans for major reform measures of both telecommunications and broadcasting,

47 Id.

48The European Audiovisual Observatory, Co-Regulation of the Media in Europe (2003),

49CT Marsden, supra note 46 at 9.

50 Supra at 99.

51Bill Orme, United States: Media self – regulation: A questionable case of American Exceptionalism? ETHICAL JOURNALISM NETWORK (May 26,2022) factor/united-states accessed (last visited on Dec. 24, 2021).

52Hans J. Kleinsteuber, supra note 35.



including proposals to establish a single regulatory body in the form of a new Office of Communications (OfCom).53The White Paper in particular recommended that a new system of regulation for public service broadcasting be introduced based on three tiers of requirement. The first tier, applying to all broadcasters, would include minimum content standards, rules on advertising and sponsorship, the provision of fair, impartial and accurate news and EC quotas; these would be enforced by Ofcom.54The second tier would apply only to public service broadcasters, and would consist of quantifiable public service requirements, such as quotas for original and independent productions and for regional programming;

these also would be enforced by Ofcom.55 Finally, the general qualitative public service remits would be primarily a matter for the broadcasters themselves to deliver. 56They would be required to develop statements of programme policy and self-regulatory mechanisms to do so, setting out annually their plans to meet their statutory public service remits. Each year the broadcasters would each be required to report on the delivery of plans to report on delivery of the plans. If they failed to respond positively, Ofcom could require and enforce quantified obligations.57 In 2012, the Australian Department of Broadband, Communications and the digital economy published its finding through which it recommended a complete overhaul of news media regulation and proposed a single regulatory body with the responsibility of print, broadcast and online news.58 It observed that the benchmark of the new regulatory system should be that the system must be statutorily backed without the provision of opting out of the system and the presence of adequate enforcement. The enquiry has proposed an independent News Media Council, which would be free from government influence through an independent appointment procedure. The authority of the NMC is to be conferred by statute, and its jurisdiction is therefore bound by a legal definition of what constitutes the ‘news media’, such that no eligible body can opt-out of the system.59The Inquiry adopts that of the New Zealand Law Commission’s recent report, subject to a ‘minimum threshold’ below which no regulatory obligations apply.60 This would be determined by size of potential readership, or by number of annual hits in the case of online outlets. The report further outlined that the NMC would have no powers to levy any fines or award any compensations and that after a matter had been adjudicate upon, the NMC as well as the publication would be

53A New Future for Communications, Cm 5010 (2000),, (last visited on June 12, 2022.



56Supra note 53

57Bill Orne, supra note 51.

58Keith Besgrove, Australia’s media and communications regulatory environment _market_structure_stakeholders_and_regulatory_approaches_keith_besgrove_dbcde.pdf.

59G. Ramsay, Enforced Self- regulation’- what can the Leveson Inquiry learn from Australia, MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST (May 22, 2022), learn-from-australia.




privileged from being made a party to any legal proceeding arising out of that matter. 61In case of non-compliance, the NMC or the complainant would be duly entitled to obtain an order from the court compelling compliance. 62

 In India, in the wake of failure of both the State regulatory mechanism and the self- regulatory mechanism, the system in replacement should be robust and water tight enough to ensure compliance and at the same time be independent enough so as to defer influence of the media agencies and government actors in order to retain a fair balance within the system. As, it can be inferred that in given situation co-regulation can be best way to handle the failure of above given two regulatory mechanisms. Although in co- regulatory mechanism, it needs to be taken care of that the inputs should be taken from all the relevant actors i.e., there should be equal participation from different industry players, state actors, prominent persons in media houses, social workers, etc. and there should be insulation of the independent public authority formed by having a balanced channel of financing so that the media houses cannot be easily influenced by political party ruling the state.

Therefore, while the system of co-regulation is at budding stage but this system has a potential to bring the transparency and fairness along with the ethical standards required in news broadcasting industry and such process can become reality by allowing the discussions between all the interested parties with the aim to develop key structural and procedural characteristics for ensuring the feasibility and effectiveness of co- regulation system.


It is well known saying that “excess of everything is bad” and it applies squarely in the present context as news broadcasting media can’t be given the excessive freedom in the name of self-regulation. And, it can’t be ignored by legislators that the direct self- regulating authorities are failing in holding the individuals accountable who are irresponsible and ignorant towards the duty of imparting correct and true news to the citizens. With the misinformation on the news channels, the masses will be misguided and irreparable harm will be caused to the democracy. But the state can’t be allowed to completely regulate the news broadcasting media because then the freedom of speech and expression of media will be at stake. Also, the news broadcasting media can’t be allowed to become mere messenger of state because in that situation media can’t be considered as fourth pillar of democracy in its true sense.

Thus, the time has arrived to make a co-regulatory body who can keep a watch on the watchdog as with the failing existing regulatory framework, the news channels will keep on showing the misinformation in their content to make it sensational and dramatic and the true essence of journalism will die sooner or later. Therefore, the independent and autonomous body established by government with the industry players with the sanctioning powers and the binding Code of Ethics should be there for news broadcasters because maintaining the integrity and professionalism in any profession is vital for ensuring the sanctity of profession.


62 Supra note 59.




Related subjects :