The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to create a Press Council of Tamil Nadu within a span of three months. The council, the High Court said, should be headed by a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge. It should also consist of a team of senior and retired journalists and IAS and IPS officers. The yet to be constituted Press Council will be vested with several powers to regulate journalists and press organisations in the state. The council, which will be constituted under the purview of the Tamil Nadu government, is being seen as an attempt to identify fake journalists who indulge in illegal acts like extortion and to protect the interests of genuine journalists.
Most importantly, the Press Council, the High Court said, will be vested with the authority to recognise press clubs and scribe associations and related unions in Tamil Nadu. The council will also have the power to disallow or ban groups and associations based on caste, communities and similar categories. The council can also hold and recognise elections to these clubs, unions and associations.
This is good for present condition of unorganised clubs and Press associations held by very few people. The Press council should also ensure to have a fair and free unions in the state and hope the committee formed has members who are neutral and inclusive. https://t.co/RRYl1C9tIf
— Induja Ragunathan (@R_Induja) August 28, 2021
The council should specify a particular period to conduct such elections. If the press club does not conduct these elections within the stipulated time, then the administration of the club or association can be taken over by the council. The council also has the power to decide the number of such associations in each town or city in Tamil Nadu. Granting free passes and grants to journalists shall only be done via the council.
The court has also stated that the press council can regulate conferences or meetings by allowing or denying permits for these events. The press council has the power to collect the source of income and other details before allowing permission to these meetings.
The High Court has also granted permission to the yet to be constituted council to identify fake journalists and lodge complaints against them with the police. Members of the public can also send complaints regarding fake journalists to the council, according to the court’s directive.
Unless the media organisation discloses their employee strength, salary steps, TDS details and tax paid to the government and proof of sales, subscriptions or viewerships, the government can withhold issuing press stickers, ID cards and other perks to these organisations. Once the council has been created, all journalist organisations and clubs should be placed in ‘suspended animation’ so the elections to them can be conducted under the supervision of the Press Council, within a period of six months.
If any reader files a complaint, the council has the power to summon the publication and investigate the veracity of the report. Depending upon the findings, the council also has the power to get the news publication which published the said report to carry an apology or rejoinder or publish the response of the complainant to the piece of news in a prominent space or page of the paper/online site.
The court has also directed the state government to follow the directions and submit a compliance report within four weeks, failing which the Director of Information and Public relations will have to appear before the bench.
Although the court has issued the directives in order to clamp down on fake news, there are concerns that the above clauses could likely curtain freedom or speech or the independent functioning of media houses and freelance journalists, especially when the council is being constituted by the state government.
Speaking to TNM, senior journalist and columnist professor AS Paneerselvam said, “The concerns with the order is that it does not clearly define the terms ‘fake journalists,’ ‘agenda based news,’ etc and therefore complicates the process of filtering out fake news even more.”
The journalist adds that a different approach is needed if the aim is to weed out fake news.
“While the intent behind the judgement is to filter out fake news, the order conflates external factors such as distribution of benefits to journalists and management of journalist bodies with core journalist concerns such as quality of journalism and its content. If the purpose is to weed out fake journalism, then a different approach should be followed and not by creating a larger and stringent regulatory framework for the media which focuses on the above-mentioned external factors,” he added.
“I also wonder if the judgment would pass the judicial scrutiny if it is challenged and goes to a higher court. The Press Council of India was set up by the Parliament in 1955. Similarly, a similar council for the state should ideally also be set up through laws passed by the legislative assembly and not through judicial intervention,” he added.