VIOLATION OF THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORK ACT

Disclaimer: The note/s given below is/ are a compilation of information taken from various sources. The references to the sources are provided at the end. The views expressed in the note/s are those of the concerned student/s/ intern/s. The blogger or the compiler will not be responsible in any manner whatsoever regarding the authenticity of the information provided in the note/s.

These notes are being compiled to help the students for educational purposes during Covid-19 pandemic.

 

Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Important provision of the cable television act
3. Objective of the act
4. Amendment of the act in 2021
5. UPLINKING and DOWNLINKING in broadcast
6. Various case studies of violation of the cable television network act
7. Conclusion

 

INTRODUCTION

According to the Cable Television Network Act, 1995:

The Act aimed at regulating content and operation of cable networks. This Act regulates the ‘haphazard mushrooming of cable television networks’.

Important Provisions:

Section 2:  Under the Act, district magistrates, sub-divisional magistrates and police commissioners are the ‘authorised officers’ to ensure that the Programme Code is not breached.

Section 3:  No person shall operate a cable television network unless he is registered as a cable operator under this Act.

Section 4A:  It is obligatory for cable operators to transmit programmes of any channel in an encrypted form through a digital addressable system when the centre asks them to do so.

Section 16: Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act shall be punishable.

Section 19:  Authorised officer has power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest if it promotes, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities.

 

Section 20:  Parliament has power to prohibit operation of cable television networks in public interest.

 

The Objective of the Act

The object of the Act was to manage the ‘aimless mushrooming of satellite broadcasting companies’. Because of the absence of authorizing system for link administrators; this brought about a huge number of link administrators, broadcasting programs with no guidelines.

The Act planned for controlling substance and activity of link systems. This was because of the accessibility of signs from outside broadcasting companies by means of satellite correspondence. The entrance to remote telecom companies was viewed as a “social attack” as these stations depicted western culture. It additionally needed to set out the “duties and commitments in regard of the nature of administration both in fact too content insightful, utilization of materials ensured under the copyright law, presentation of uncertified movies, and insurance of supporters from hostile to national communicates from sources antagonistic to national interests”.

It is additionally felt that the supporters of these satellite TV stations, the software engineers and the link administrators themselves don’t know about their privileges, duties, and commitments in regard of the nature of administration, specialized just as substance shrewd, utilization of material secured by copyright, display of uncertified movies, assurance of endorsers from hostile to national communicates from sources unfriendly to our national intrigue, responsiveness to the veritable complaints of the supporters and saw readiness to work inside the expansive system of the laws of the land for consideration like the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Copyright Act, 1957, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986. It is, consequently, viewed as important to direct the activity of digital broadcasting companies in the whole nation to achieve consistency in their activity. It will, therefore, empower the ideal abuse of this innovation which has the capability of making accessible to the endorsers a huge pool of data and amusement.

Amendment of Act on 17 June 2021

The Central Government on 17 June 2021 issued a notification amending the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 thereby providing a statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances/complaints of citizens relating to content broadcast by television channels in accordance with the provisions of the Cable Television Network Act, 1995.

Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021.

It provides for a three-level grievance redressal mechanism — self-regulation by broadcasters, self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the broadcasters, and oversight by an Inter-Departmental Committee at the level of the Union government.

 

Significance Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021:

●      Various Self-regulatory bodies like News Broadcasters Standards Authority (NBSA) and Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) will get legal recognition.

●      At present, there is an institutional mechanism by way of an Inter-Ministerial Committee to address grievances of citizens relating to violation of the Programme/Advertising Codes under the Rules.

●      Various broadcasters have also developed their internal self-regulatory mechanism for addressing grievances.

●      There are over 900 television channels that have been granted permission by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).

●      The recent notification is significant as it paves the way for a strong institutional system for redressing grievances while placing accountability and responsibility on the broadcasters and their self-regulating bodies.

●      This will bring the television’s self-regulatory mechanism at par with that being set-up for OTT players and digital news publishers, as envisaged in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

 

UPLINKING AND DOWNLINKING IN BROADCAST

 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has issued a Press Release on May 9, 2006 in respect of compliance with the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines, respectively. This Press Release has been issued amidst growing confusion with respect to the Downlinking Guidelines and the impending May 10, 2006 deadline for filing applications.

The Press Release allows continuation of telecast of channels being downlinked in India from abroad, which have applied for channel registration on or before May 11, 2006.

 

DOWNLINKING GUIDELINES

The Downlinking Guidelines are applicable when the channel is uplinking from outside India. The Downlinking Guidelines prohibit any cable operator or DTH service provider, after the expiry of 180 days from the date of the Guidelines, to carry or include in his cable/DTH network any television channel that has not been registered under the guidelines. This 180-day period expired on May 10, 2006. In the absence of the abovementioned Press Release, those channels being uplinked from outside India, who have failed to complete all formalities of registration, under downlinking guidelines prior to expiry of the deadline, would have had to stop the downlinking until such downlinking permission and registration is obtained.

So as to expedite and support compliance with the Downlinking Guidelines, the MIB has through this Press Release granted relief to those channels, who have made an application for registration on or before May 11, 2006. Broadcast of such channels can continue for a period of six months beginning from May 11, 2006 or till such registration has been granted or refused, whichever is earlier. The benefit of this provision can also be taken by a TV channel, which has not started its broadcast into India but have filed their application before May 11, 2006.

The TV channels, which file the application for registration after May 11, 2006, can continue with their broadcast only after obtaining channel registration.

The Downlinking Guidelines are intended to control the TV channels being uplinked from outside India, by requirement of obtaining downlinking permission through their own entity in India or an exclusive marketing and distribution agent and also requiring channel registration. There are certain other controls imposed by the downlinking Guidelines, which appear to be reasonable. However, many companies are finding the requirement of 1.5 net worth too onerous.

 

UPLINKING GUIDELINES

The Press Release also clarifies that the channels that were granted permission to uplink from India prior to December 2, 2005, (i.e the date of issuance of the revised Uplinking Guidelines), shall be treated as “registered” television channels and they can be carried or included in the cable service. That means they need not again apply to MIB for channel registration as per the procedure prescribed under Downlinking Guidelines. The MIB will also provide on its website the names of the 173 channels that are permitted to uplink as per the earlier Uplinking Guidelines. In the absence of this clarification, undue burden would have been put these TV channels of payment of Rs. 5, 10,000 (USD 11,333 approx) as registration fee. However, the MIB has not clarified the term for which those licenses would be deemed to have been registered as the earlier Uplinking Guidelines provided for registration for 10 years, while the present provides for 5 years.

Further, earlier Uplinking Guideline was silent as to requirement of Applicant company for channel registration to be an Indian company. However, under the present Guidelines the applicant company has to be an Indian company. The rationale for this distinction is not clear. The entire intention of controlling the companies that provide channels would get defeated in case of companies which have obtained channel registration prior to December 2, 2006.

The MIB is also in the process of providing on it website the complete list of broadcasters in India and the applications that are pending for approval so that it remain a comprehensive control of the payers in the broadcasting sector.

Apart from the above issues, instances are coming up where the validity of certain provisions of the Downlinking Guidelines is being challenged. Ten Sports has filed a case in the Supreme Court wherein they have taken objection to the requirement under the Downlinking Guidelines that feed for sporting events of national importance should be compulsorily shared with Prasar Bharati (the owner of the Government channels). Ten sports argues that the requirement of sharing feed is arbitrary and without authority of law. Thus constitutional validity of such provision itself is being challenged. The out come of this Special Leave Petition requires to be closely followed as this will have a significant impact on some of clauses of the Downlinking Guidelines which has caused the greatest concern to broadcasters.

 

CASE STUDY 1

Banning Liquor Advertisements

In  June 2002, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry of India ordered leading television (TV) broadcasters to ban the telecast of two surrogate ads of liquor brands, McDowell’s No. 1 and Gilbey’s Green Label.

The Ministry also put some other brands like Smirnoff Vodka, Hayward’s 5000, Royal Challenge Whiskey and Kingfisher beer  on a ‘watch list.’ The surrogates used by these advertisements ranged from audiocassettes, CDs and perfumes to golf accessories and mineral water. By August 2002, the I&B Ministry had banned 12 advertisements. Leading satellite TV channels, including Zee, Sony, STAR and Aaj Tak were issued show cause notices asking them to explain their reason for carrying surrogate liquor advertisements.

The channels were asked to adhere strictly to the Cable Television Regulation Act 1995 (Cable TV Act, 1995). As a result, Zee and STAR stopped telecasting the advertisements; Aaj Tak and Sony soon followed suit. In addition, the I&B Ministry hired a private monitoring agency to keep a watch on all advertisements for violations of the Act.

These developments led to heated debates over the issue of surrogate advertising by liquor companies. Though the liquor companies involved protested strongly against the I&B Ministry’s decision, they had no choice, but to comply with the regulations. Analysts remarked that the government’s policy was hypocritical.

 

CASE STUDY 2

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s direction requiring NDTV India to go off air for a day because of its coverage of the Pathankot terror attack generated a storm of controversy. 

Supporters of the government  accused their opponents of irresponsibly sacrificing national security at the altar of freedom of speech, and have pointed to Rule 6(1)(p) of the Cable TV Programme Code, which sensibly proscribes live coverage of anti-terrorist operations. Supporters of NDTV India, on the other hand,  protested that the channel’s broadcast took place long after the operations were over, that the footage was already available in the public domain through Google Maps, and that the government’s singling out of NDTV India, which was just one among many channels broadcasting similar footage, smacks of both arbitrariness and vindictiveness against an entity perceived to be “anti-establishment”. 

The law that governs cable broadcasts is the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995. Section 5 of this Act prohibits any cable TV transmission that is not “in conformity with the prescribed programme code”. The Programme Code contains a bouquet of blissfully vague, boundlessly manipulable, and entirely subjective terms. Programmes may not “offend against good taste or decency”, or present “half-truths”, or “criticise” any individual, or reflect a “snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups”. Such exquisitely vague language not only permits, but positively invites censorship and abuse of power. Not only that, it goes far beyond Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows the state to limit the freedom of speech only through “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of specific, narrow-drawn categories such as “public order”, “defamation”, or the “security of the State”.

The Programme Code constitutes a serious infringement of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and is evidently unconstitutional. Unfortunately, however, the prospects of having it struck down by the Supreme Court look bleak. In 1970, the court upheld the Censor Board guidelines, which were equally vague when it came to film certification.

If the provisions of the Programme Code are destructive of the freedom of speech, then the procedure contemplated by the Cable Television Act creates problems of a different  yet equally severe  kind. Section 19 of the Act authorises the government to prohibit cable operators from transmitting programmes or channels that are not in conformity with the Programme Code. The Act effectively vests the power of banning television with the government, without any judicial oversight. Once the prohibitory order has been passed, the burden is then upon the TV channel or cable operator to approach the courts and attempt to have it invalidated.

Apart from the substantive content of speech that a legal regime might aim to restrict, the regulatory procedure that it establishes can end up causing far greater damage to free expression. Regulatory procedure determines how and where the costs and burdens of censorship are located. For instance, if you think that I have defamed you, then it is your prerogative to file a case against me, and satisfy an independent court that I have violated the law. The burden of proceeding against me — the speaker — lies upon you, the person who considers herself to have been harmed by my speech. The Cable Television Act, however, reverses this burden by giving a carte blanche to the government to ban channels or programmes which, in its subjective assessment, have violated the Programme Code.

The most well-intentioned of governments tend to be wary of criticism, prone to over-regulation, and (understandably) sensitive about the possibility of public disorder. Governments whose intentions are less noble — and there have been such governments — can be paranoid, malicious, and unforgiving towards political opponents. By shifting the costs of censorship entirely from the government to the speaker, who must move the courts to get a ban overturned, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act rewards state overreach. This is not only a problem with cable television. The Code of Criminal Procedure allows the state to ban books in a similar manner, and the Cinematograph Act contains an even more stringent regulatory regime for films.

There is an easy way to remedy this. The Cable Television Act (and similar laws in other domains) should require that if the government wishes to ban something, it must first convince an independent court, in adversarial proceedings, that its request is justified. The court ought to carefully scrutinise the government’s arguments, refuse to accord it undue deference, and grant its request only if it is convinced that a ban is both necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. In this case, the debate that is now raging in the public sphere over the correctness of the government’s action in taking NDTV India off air would first be had within the courtroom. There may, of course, be emergencies where time is of the essence, and the government must act. In such circumstances, it must be nonetheless be called upon to justify itself in court after the fact, and compensate speakers if it is found that it acted wrongly.

 

CASE STUDY 3

TV channels warned against violating code

Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant had issued a general order prohibiting all television channels from airing programmes that are not in conformity with the “Programme Code” notified under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

The court, on a petition filed by Atma V. Hiremath, had on March 6 directed that any broadcast on the cable television network should be strictly in conformity with the terms of the “Programme Code”. The State government had assured the court that the Commissioner of Police, the “authorised officer” for Bengaluru city under the Act, would take the necessary steps.

The order, passed by Mr. Pant on March 9, under Section 19 of the Cable CTN (Regulation) Act, also states that any violation of the order is liable for prosecution under Section 16 of the Act.

The law prescribes imprisonment up to two years or fine up to ₹1,000 or both for the first offence, and imprisonment up to five years and with fine up to ₹5,000 if any media governed under the CTN Act violates the provisions and the “Programme Code”.

The code, which contains an elaborate list of don’ts for cable TV channels, states that no programme should be aired that contains anything obscene, defamatory, false, and suggests innuendos and half-truths.

The other important prohibitions in the code are on telecasting programmes which denigrate women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals; is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition; contravenes the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, etc.

 

CASE STUDY 4

S.MANIMEGALAI V : THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA.

The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions seeking a direction, directing the respondents to conduct a survey for the number of connections possessed by the petitioner and fix the subscription fees as per the TRAI regulations and Cable Television Network regulation Act.

According to the petitioner, She is a LCO (Local Cable TV Operator) in Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting a proper survey regarding the number of connections possessed by the petitioner’s Cable Vision, the respondents fixed the demand. As per the TRAI regulations and Cable Television Network Regulation Act, the respondent should conduct a proper survey and based on the survey, fix the subscription fees. Hence, she has filed the present writ petitions.

Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3/Arasu Cable TV Corporation fairly submitted that the respondents will conduct proper survey regarding the actual number of connections given to LCOs, thereafter make a demand, as per the TRAI regulations and Cable Television Network Regulation Act. He further submitted that since the LCOs like the petitioner formed an association and were interfering with the survey, he sought police protection during the survey.

In the above circumstances, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to conduct the proper survey in the presence of the petitioner regarding the actual number of connections given to LCOs, thereafter, the respondent shall make a demand, based on the above said survey. The petitioner is also directed not to cause any disturbance during the time of survey. In the event of any such interference, it is open to the respondents 2 & 3 to seek police protection.

With the above direction, these writ petitions are ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

CASE STUDY 5

VINDHYACHAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NTPC)  BHOPAL

The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand of service tax was confirmed on the appellant.

The contention of the appellant is that it is a Welfare Association of Employees of National Thermal Power Corpn. At Sidhi and they were running a club, library etc. and also providing cable connection to their members only. The contention is that all the infrastructure assets including dish antenna and cabling etc. is owned by NTPC-Vindhyachal and monthly aid is also provided by NTPC for meeting the recurring expenditure. The contention is that the members of society are only contributed Rs. 40/- per month towards the subscription. The contention is that as the appellants cannot be held that they are cable operators as the infrastructure and assets provided by the NTPC-Vindhyachal and the Welfare Association is only maintaining that infrastructure.

The contention of the revenue is that as per the provision of Section 65 of the Finance Act “Cable Operator” means as assigned to in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. As per the act that any person who provides cable services through television network or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable television network. The contention is that as the appellants are managing and providing the cable television network, therefore, they are liable to pay Service tax.

In this case the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the tax liability after verifying the fact whether members are paying Rs. 40/- or Rs. 200/- per month. The contention before us is also that the infrastructure assets including dish antenna and cabling etc. is owned by NTPC-Vindhyachal and monthly aid is also provided by NTPC. In these circumstances whether the present appellant who is a Welfare Association of NTPC, Sidhi is a cable operator or NTPC, is to be examined. In the light of the contentions made by the appellant as the matter is already remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the adjudicating authority will now decide the issue afresh whether appellants are covered under the scope of cable operators as provided under the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority will decide the matter after affording an opporting of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

 

CASE STUDY 6

The government has allowed Sudarshan News, a Hindi channel, to air a controversial programme that seeks to “expose” a “conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims” into the Indian civil services.

Information & Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry has said it cannot pre-censor a programme, or stop it from being telecast.

It is because Indian broadcast rules do not permit pre-censorship of TV programmes and advertisements — that is banning them before they are aired — and only films and film trailers are pre-certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

The Sudarshan News episode came to light after the channel released a promotional trailer, terming the alleged conspiracy “bureaucracy jihad” and “UPSC jihad”. The trailer at once elicited widespread criticism, with many alleging the content amounted to hate speech.

The episode was also challenged in the Delhi High Court, which stayed its telecast. When Sudarshan News approached the court to vacate the stay, the latter asked the I&B Ministry to take a call.

Section 20 of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, states that the government can regulate or prohibit the transmission or retransmission of any programme that it feels is not in conformity with the Programme and Advertising Code, which oversees television content in India.

However, since there is no body to pre-certify content for TV, potentially problematic programmes only come to notice once they have been aired.

The Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC), under the I&B Ministry, monitors the content telecast on private TV channels to check if they adhere to the Programme and Advertising Code.

Specific complaints on code violations are looked into by an inter-ministerial committee (IMC).

Rule 6 of the Cable TV Network Rules:

It is also the responsibility of the channel to ensure its programmes are not violative of the programme code, laid down in Rule 6 of the Cable TV Network Rules.

Sub-section ‘c’ of Rule 6 specifically mentions that programmes that contain attacks on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes should not be carried in the cable service.

 

Conclusion

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 that governs the service of cable television networks in the country and related matters, was introduced with a thought that it will balance the issues regarding the television and network, and with that perspective, the legislation became the medium for resolving the network issue.

 

REFERENCES

●      https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/its-not-about-just-national-security/article16183093.ece

●      https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/changes-in-cable-television-network-rules

●      https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1727961

●      https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/tv-channels-warned-against-violating-code/article34039186.ece

●      https://www.casemine.com/search/in/cable%2Btelevision%2Bnetwork%2B%28regulation%29%2Bact

●      https://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Marketing/Banning%20Surrogate%20Liquor%20Advertising.htm

●      http://www.nishithdesai.com/information/news-storage/news-details/article/press-release-by-mib-on-uplinking-and-downlinking-guidelines.html

 

Compiled by

Priyanka

Batch of 2023

B.A.(Hons.) Journalism

Lady Shri Ram College for Women, New Delhi