|
This
was stated in a memorandum submitted with the endorsement of the
National Union of Journalists (India) an IFJ affiliate, and two
local unions from Mumbai and Delhi.
We understand that the most recent draft of the Broadcast
Bill that has been circulated for public debate is the fourth
in a decade, said IFJ Asia Pacific Director Jacqueline Park.
That its future is still uncertain, speaks of a failure
of consensus-building around the purported aims of broadcast law
reform.
The IFJ has been advised by affiliates and other like-minded organisations
in India that the Broadcast Services Regulation Bill in its most
recent version is not dissimilar to a draft that was introduced,
discussed and abandoned last year. The only respect in which the
current legislative proposals differ from those of 2006 is in
the introduction of a set of guidelines for broadcasters,
or a content code.
While we can appreciate a regulatory regime that seeks to
curtail cross-media ownership and ensure that the broadcast spectrum
is preserved as a public resource, we do not see the utility of
regulating content, said Park.
The IFJ has learnt through its affiliates that the Indian Penal
Code as it now exists is adequate to deal with instances of gross
abuse of media autonomy. Competent legal opinion has held that
there is no basis for the prior restraint of the right to free
speech, since the punitive powers available are sufficient to
sanction all offences post facto.
In the circumstances, said Park, the purpose
of broadcast law reform should be little less than to give effect
to the historic judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, that the
airwaves are a public resource, which should be allocated in accordance
with a broad definition of public interest.
The IFJ, in consultation with affiliated unions and other civil
society groups, would like to urge the Indian government to broaden
its consultations and to explicitly grant the demand of the professional
community of journalists, to be heard in the process of broadcast
law reform.
|