Making it clear that it does not want to impose any censorship on media, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud stressed on the need for having an effective self-regulatory mechanism, while referring to the coverage of Sushant Singh Rajput's death.
Slamming the existing self-regulatory mechanism to monitor TV news channels in the country, the Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response, saying it wants to make it "more effective". The top court specifically mentioned some channels going "berserk" during their coverage of actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death case.
Making it clear that it does not want to impose any censorship on media, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud stressed on the need for having an effective self-regulatory mechanism.The top court asked the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), which is now known as News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA) and has a self-regulatory mechanism, to take inputs from the chairperson of News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority, Justice (retd) A K Sikri, and its former chief Justice (retd) R V Raveendran, both former Supreme Court judges. It noted that the self-regulatory mechanism can be strengthened after taking note of all existing material, including the inputs of former apex court judges.
The Bombay High Court in 2021 noted that a part of the coverage by Republic TV and Times Now in the Sushant Singh Rajput case was "prima facie contemptuous" and urged the press not to cross the proverbial "Lakshman Rekha".
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni held that the press, particularly the above mentioned two news channels, "crossed boundaries" in their reportage of the actor’s death. The bench said "the two channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation."
The top court yesterday, noted that while the aim is to not censor the media, the coverage of Sushant Singh Rajput's death was a case of 'pre-empting criminal investigation'.Tthe bench observed, "Because of the kind of frenzy after the death of that actor, everybody went berserk presuming it is a murder… You pre-empt criminal investigation. "You say it is clear that, barring a few instances, almost all TV channels maintain self-restraint in telecast. I don't know if you take a head count of the people in court, who will agree with what you say," the CJI said.