case_on_television_anchors.txt

The Centre represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj suggested there were enough checks and balances to which the bench replied, What is the use if it is not applied in a manner that does not produce results. For so many years, there is no regulatory mechanism for television. It is a free for all.
Wondering whether the time had come to deal with news anchors and channel heads with a heavy hand, the bench said, In a live programme, the key lies with the anchor. If the anchor is not acting in a fair manner, there should be power to take off an anchor. How many times have you taken off anchors?
Nataraj told the court that the Centre is contemplating a comprehensive law on the issue of hate crimes and regulation of such content online. “As a state we do not subscribe to hate crimes. It cannot take the colour of any religion.
But the court replied, The buck stops at you. What are you doing to control it (hate speech)? We don’t like governments to come in at all as it is a matter of free speech. But in certain areas, it affects harmony in the society.
Advocate Nizam Pasha appearing for one of the petitioners pointed out that despite the Court’s direction of October 21 asking states to register suo moto complaints of hate speech, there has been no change on ground. He produced a speech by Sudershan TV editor Suresh Chavhanke at an event organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Maharashtra on December 12 spewing hate against Muslims and Christians.
Pasha moved an application seeking seek responses from Maharashtra and three other states of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Haryana where similar instances of hate speech and protests inciting violence were reported early this year. The plea said, “It is clear that the cases of hate speeches have been on the rise across the country...Strict action ought to be taken against the speakers and participants present at the aforementioned events and also against the authorities that failed in preventing such an event from happening.”