BETWEEN PROPAGANDA AND CENSORSHIP: THE TWO-FACED CRISIS OF INDIAN MEDIA
Written by Amit Dang, fourth year student at National Law University Odisha. INTRODUCTION From the genesis of the printing press by Gutenberg, history has witnessed numerous unsuccessful attempts to curb the dissemination of information by the authority. In 1538 CE, Italy was the first to have an ‘Index of Prohibited Books’; this was further followed by other European states. Works of Nicolaus Copernicus, Giovanni Boccaccio, and Niccolo Machiavelli were added to the list of prohibited books. The freedom of speech and expression was made an inalienable man’s right in the French Revolution and is considered an inseparable substantive element of democracy, set in Abrams v. Abrams. The freedom of the press or media is one of the domains of freedom of speech and cannot be curtailed. However, looking into the contemporary media situation in the 20th and 21st centuries. The accessibility, control and dissemination of information have altogether revolutionised. The invention of the internet and mobile devices has not only made the accessibility to information easier but has also handed over the power to generate and create new information. A new dilemma has emerged: the media is being used to promote propaganda. The authority or governments have always tried to control and regulate media for dissemination of their propaganda; the heightened historical account of such use was seen in Nazi Germany by Adolf Hitler. In contemporary democratic states, although there is no direct control over the media, but indirect control. The media houses are owned by businessmen whose political alignment and support are toward any political party affiliation, or are owned by family members or those directly involved in politics. The government is bringing in new laws to regulate the media, and there is apprehension about what the government can regulate or control that is being generated by the media. CONSTITUTION AND MEDIA FREEDOM The Black Law Dictionary defines ‘media’ as “Every broadcasting and narrow casting medium, like newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, billboards, direct mail, telephone, fax, and internet are part of what is the Media.” However, the traditional understanding of media refers to a medium which provides news and information, i.e newspapers, press and news channels. Though there has been a new evolution of news providing sources through digital devices and internet companies like YouTube. Due to this evolution, there is ambiguity in defining or delineation what is media and what is not media. The right to freedom of the press is guaranteed in India by Article 19(1)(a) as Freedom of speech and expression, unlike in the US, where it explicitly states freedom of the press. However, this right is not absolute and is under the restrictions described under Article 19(2) as “ Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” So, Article 19 clearly outlines that under the grounds of “the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” government can impose restriction on the circulation of information by the media. However, these are vague and understanding of what will be constituted as “public order” has evolved from the three landmark judgements in the “Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras (The Cross Road Newspaper), Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (Organiser Newspaper) and State of Bihar v. Shailabala (Bharati Press)” cases. MEDIA REGULATION Media, which are mostly preferred to visual television and digital, are self-regulated through the “News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA)”, and the press or printed media is self-regulated by the “Press Council of India (PCI)” under the aegis of the “Press Council Act” of 1978. The self-regulation means there is monitoring of the work through its own rules and regulations. India and many countries in the world have the self-regulation mechanisms for the media because it is a general postulation that if the media of press comes under the regulation or control of government then it would mean intervention of media autonomy and freedom, ultimately violating the fundamental right under 19(1) freedom of “speech and expression”. The “Central News Media Accreditation Guidelines” are to be complied with by the electronic media houses, and if they are found to be broadcasting any false or fraudulent news, then the media house would face a penalty in the form of debarment form of accreditation up to a maximum of five years. Apart from that, there are internal mechanisms to fact-check the authenticity of the news. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting regulate the television content through acts such as the “Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995” and associated rules and codes. Furthermore, the “Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023” has proposed to modernize the regulatory framework for broadcasting in India in this digital age. It aims to replace the old “Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995” and expands the scope to OTT content, IPTV, DTH and Digital news on the internet. TWO-FACED DELIMMA India’s position in the world freedom of the press index is 151. There has been a decline in the freedom of the press since the coming of the BJP government in 2014. The case of India is somewhat different from the other countries. There have been attacks on journalists, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment under the allegation of sedition. Business tycoons and politically aligned people own the media houses that promote the agendas of specific political ideologies. This poses a great threat to the free press, which doesn’t disseminate any propaganda. Most of the media houses are either owned by politicians or business tycoons who have
THE EVOLUTION OF PAPARAZZI: FROM LA DOLCE VITA TO SOCIAL MEDIA FRENZY
Written by Dipanshu Raj & Harsh Gupta students at Maharashtra National Law University, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The assertive photographers and journalists, called “Paparazzi”, play a paramount role in clicking interesting photos of celebrities. This fad started with the Italian film La Dolce Vita and has now spread to all corners of the world. This period started with the beginning of the ravenous public desire for a peek into famous individuals’ lives. In India, this growth of paparazzi following the moves of Bollywood stars, cricketers, and politicians is part of a larger change in which privacy boundaries are increasingly being probed. With the advent of social media, this effect has only been heightened, with the dispersal of paparazzi material far and wide. Paparazzi are freelance photographers who click pictures of famous people like celebrities, cricketers, and politicians. Paparazzi are well known for their persistent following of celebrities in their private space, such as the gym, vehicle, restaurant, and home, to capture exclusive or private moments. They usually click pictures of their daily routine. Earlier, to make a living, paparazzi used to sell their photographs to media agencies and earn money from them. But clicking photos of the celebrity’s day-to-day affairs acts as a double-edged sword, it acts as money-making for the paparazzi on one side, while on the other hand, it also violates the celebrities’ privacy. INTEREST OF THE PAPARAZZI AND CELEBRITIES This feeds the paparazzi industry, which records unguarded moments of celebrities to heighten consumption for the public, which is greatly fascinated with the celebrity lifestyle. With the social media that have gained momentum of late, their addiction has risen further into demanding uncensored access to the lives of public personas. In contrast to the well-manicured postings online, the seeming authenticity of the paparazzi photos raises demand for exclusive content. The media outlets exploit this demand and sell subscription services to fans to get a close-up look at their favourite celebrities. This has influenced the function of the celebrities themselves within the paparazzi economy. Gone are the days when celebrities used to be simple passive subjects to uninvited photography; instead, today most of them carefully cultivate the industry to extend their visibility and bolster brand strength. They nourish parasocial interactions, that is, one-sided emotional relationships that feel close, with their fans by inclusions of paparazzi photos in their public selves. In a time when attention has to be brief on digital platforms, these exchanges are relevant. Celebrities also exploit paparazzi photos by promoting lifestyle, fashion, and/or accessory products to reinforce their status as marketable “brands.” For this reason, the paparazzi have two jobs: one of knowingly violating privacy and one of providing celebrities with a strategic means of self-marketing. It is in this sense that the mutually reinforcing relationship underlines the way that celebrity culture, in its mergers of fashion, fame, and business, has commodified itself. For the money-shot-grabbing paparazzi and the celebrities who either want or believe in some sort of enduring cultural the more iconic a star becomes, the more resilient their unpoliced moments in time. IMPORTANT REGULATION AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PAPARAZZI While coming to the legislation and regulation regarding the paparazzi in India, there is no such regulation for the same, but recent legal developments have sought to address the privacy issues resulting from the actions of paparazzi. Section 78(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, makes it punishable to invade privacy by surveillance or recording. This Act gives more strength to privacy rights and remedies. The Press Council of India has issued guidelines that establish ethical media practices and privacy. However, these guidelines are not legally binding in due time, but they are generally anticipated to be complied with by the media and the paparazzi. It is often that the paparazzi would use Article 19(1)(a) as well as Article (1)(g), which covers freedom of speech, trade, and occupation respectively, to defend the invasive actions, which is a legal weakness in terms of privacy. The concept, although, has no direct protection from the Constitution, may find a place in the apex jurisdiction vide Article 21, which speaks about the ‘right to life and thereby connotes liberty. In “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court defined privacy to be associated with personal liberty. Likewise, in the R. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra. In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court upheld people’s rights to privacy over personal information and held that the media cannot publish or broadcast such information without consent. Thus, the right to privacy shields and protects the celebrities from the constant stalking and harassment by paparazzi and the use of photos and videos without their consent, and provides a proper balance between freedom of expression with human dignity and privacy. However, the changes brought by the law and judgments are a step toward remedying the challenges to privacy in India. FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCES The recent cases in India have pointed out the increasing tension between paparazzi practices and celebrities’ private rights. In R. Rajagopal Alias R.R Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Supreme Court ordered that snapping pictures without consent inside a celebrity’s house is an invasion of privacy and prohibited the magazine from republishing or hosting the photos online. Similarly, in the Shilpa Shetty Kundra case, the Bombay High Court granted an injunction against a photographer who shot unauthorized pictures of Shilpa Shetty Kundra and her family while on tour. The court, though conscious of the right to free expression of the defendant, weighed that such freedom had to be balanced against private rights and held the activities of the photographer illegal. The privacy of celebrities and their families has also been an issue. Recently, Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma expressed their discontent over illegal pictures of their daughter, while Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor requested the media not to photograph their son, Taimur Ali Khan, excessively, which set off debates regarding the privacy of children. In other cases, there have been companies