Chief Justice of India, P. Sathasivan has done well to attack stalking of the media. It has been suggested by interested parties that media should be externally regulated and overseeing agencies should have the right to present brickbats and bouquets to journalists. The Chief Justice has made it clear that external supervision is not the answer to media lapses which do occur. The press is apprehensive that external regulation could vitiate the principle of the freedom of the press, a right which was won in the Wilkes and liberty controversy in 18th Century England. The press is the bedrock of democracy. Patanjali Sastri, India’s second chief justice extended the protection of Article 19 (1) (m) of the Constitution to the press. Admittedly, media can often flout canons of democracy and privacy. The case of Rupert Murdoch in the UK springs to mind. Reports can be premature or misleading. In a US film, an enthusiastic reporter was shown going to press with a story based on a mobile call which caused the murder of an innocent person. Exposure of the Radia tapes and cash for coverage in India has been embarrassing. It strengthens the hands of the anti-press gang to ask for gagging it.
On the other hand, the media has proved it can exercise internal censorship. Some major dailies protested strongly against media censorship during Emergency in 1975-77. Existing civil and criminal laws can take care of any damage that the fourth estate can do. The media is also shackled by ownership interest. Indian reporters do not have the legal right to protect their sources. The leak of the army chief’s letter to the Prime Minister led to a controversial CBI probe. The US has what is called ‘shield laws’, but India has done nothing to adopt this measure.
