Prior permission can only put a restraint on the constitutional ideal of free speech. This principle was established in case law in 1950.There is therefore hardly any reason why the Supreme Court had to lay down the law again in 2017.It was found necessary because bullying has become a part of public discussion and debate. The Supreme Court is the protector of citizen’s freedoms. There are other custodians of rights such as online activists, pressure groups and elements in civil society. Each of them pursues a particular agenda and has its own interpretation of freedom. The Supreme Court however is the sole body which has the independence and the stature to guard freedom of speech. Prashant Bhushan in a case advocated the setting up of a regulatory body to check the media. The apex court led by the chief justice of India made it clear that neither the judiciary nor the executive can check media content. Only after something telecast or published offends a party that it can go to court. The argument is based on commonsense. The law can intervene only in matters where a complaint is made about an alleged commission of offence. Speech also falls into this category.
Regulation of media content is objectionable as such. The central government and the News Broadcasters Association uphold this position. Reporters, sub editors and editors should be relied upon to do their job properly. The need for restraint arises only when they cross the limit. Even in the case of such breach of trust, internal censorship should be enough. Industry bodies can also restrain errant members. The government claims that it has the ability to monitor 1500 new channels by the end of the year. But its role should be merely that of an observer. The Supreme Court had laid down as early as 1950 that official intervention should not be made when there is no complaint as it violates article 19 of the Constitution. All this went overboard under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the emergency.
