Human rights and media

7/29/2019 Human rights and media

1/19

Human Rights and media

AMULYA GOWDA

1RV08AT003

APARNA BASKARAN

1RV08AT006


2/19

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.


3/19

Media

Media are what we call as the fourth estate of democracy. They

include

Newspapers and magazines

Radio

Television

Film

Internet medium


4/19

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


5/19

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


6/19

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


7/19

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


8/19

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


9/19

Virendra v/s State of Punjab

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 ofpapers 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.

PETITIONER: VIRENDRAVs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB ANDANOTHER(and connected petition)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:06/09/1957


10/19

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


11/19

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


12/19

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


13/19

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


14/19

Case Studies

CASE 1:Baba Nirmal V/s Yashwanth singh

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.

LOCATION : High court of Delhi.

DECIDED ON: 14/09/2012.

APPALANT: Nirmaljit Singh Narula

RESPONDANT: Yashwant Singh & Ors

JUDGE: Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir

SUBJECT: 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)


15/19

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 theirlives 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 websitewww.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.


16/19

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 discoursesto all such kind of teachings through which the life of common man can improve and

improve in the right direction.


17/19

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ON A PUBLIC PLATFORM.

LOCATION : Supreme court of India.

DECIDED ON: 22/07/1992.

APPALANT: Union of India

RESPONDANT: Cinemart Foundation

JUDGE: A. M. Ahmadii and M. M. Punchhi, JJ.

SUBJECT: Media and communication ; Constitution

ACTS/ RULES: - Constitution of India - Article 14

- Constitution of India - Article 21

- Constitution of India - Article 19(1)



- Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 5B


18/19

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 of1987.

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 of1989, 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.


19/19

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.

Human rights and media

Documents

Transcript of Human rights and media