Regulation of Television News: Legal boundaries of irresponsible reporting

By – Sangeeth Narayanan and Amisha Rathaur

Table of Contents

Introduction

Television news plays an important role in keeping the public informed about matters of public concern. However, the reach and immediacy of television also mean that the manner in which news is reported can have significant consequences for its viewers. Inaccurate or inflammatory reporting may affect an individual’s reputation or privacy and, in appropriate cases, may also affect the administration of justice, public order or national security. While freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) protects the media’s right to report and disseminate information, that freedom is subject to Article 19(2) and other applicable laws. The regulation of television news therefore involves not only restrictions on objectionable content, but also questions of accuracy, fairness and responsibility in reporting. This article examines the legal framework governing television news and the approach of the courts towards these competing considerations.

Fair Press vs. Free Press – The case in favour and against regulating television news

Whether television news should be subjected to strict regulatory regime is a topic of intense debate. The proponents of both, a free press and a regulated press make credible arguments. Press is considered as the fourth pillar of the Democracy and free press is considered vital for the healthy functioning of Democracy. Free press, more specifically television news plays crucial role in disseminating information and more importantly reporting the wrongdoings of all the three branches of the government. It acts as a watchdog by reporting corruption, abuse of power and other violations committed by the government. In the past, television channels have reported incidents of police brutality thereby acting as a key component in protecting human rights. In addition to reporting negative and often unpleasant incidents, free television press also helps spread awareness regarding health, safety, literacy etc. amongst the public.

On the other hand, a regulated press, especially television news is required to curb hate speech, spreading misinformation and fake news, media trails in sensational criminal cases. In recent times, almost all television news channels run debates often attracting hate speech from the participants. Further, for sensationalism and creating shock value, television channels often indulge in circulating half-truths and misinformation. 

Constitutional and Legal Framework Governing Television News

Television news operates within the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which includes the freedom to disseminate news, views and information. This freedom, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interests of, inter alia, the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency or morality, and in relation to contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

The principal statutory framework governing television content is the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. Section 5 of the Act requires programmes transmitted through a cable television network to conform to the prescribed Programme Code. Rule 6(1) of the Rules prohibits, among other things, programmes that attack religions or communities or promote communal attitudes; contain obscene, defamatory, deliberate or false content, suggestive innuendos or half-truths; amount to contempt of court; or criticise, malign or slander individuals or certain groups in specified circumstances.

The Act also provides for regulatory intervention where programmes do not conform to the Programme Code, by empowering an authorised officer, in the public interest, to prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of a programme or channel that is not in conformity with the Programme Code. The Act separately empowers the Central Government, in specified circumstances and in public interest, to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of a programme or channel. 

Other Legal restrictions applicable to Television News content

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), although not specifically directed at television broadcasting, may apply where broadcast content satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence. Section 356 deals with defamation, while Sections 196 and 197 prohibit conduct that promotes disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between specified groups and certain assertions or imputations prejudicial to national integration.

Television reporting may also attract the law of contempt where it interferes with the administration of justice. Criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 includes conduct that, inter alia, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings or interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice. Therefore, instances of broadcasting extremely prejudicial news reporting, media trial, misattribution or broadcasting altered clips of live streamed court proceedings etc. would be subject to contempt law. 

Administrative oversight and self-regulation

The statutory framework is supplemented by administrative advisories issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting from time to time. Vide Advisory dated 8 June 2023, the Ministry reiterated that private satellite television channels must comply with the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Advisory specifically referred to Rule 6(1)(c), (d) and (i), concerning, inter alia, content promoting communal attitudes, defamatory or deliberately false content, suggestive innuendos and half-truths, and content that criticises, maligns or slanders individuals or specified groups.

Television news broadcasting is also subject to industry-led self-regulation through the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (“NBDSA”) and its Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, which prescribe standards relating to accuracy, impartiality, objectivity and neutrality, along with guidelines concerning potentially defamatory content, crime and violence, communal or religious harmony and other sensitive matters. The NBDSA provides a mechanism for considering complaints and issuing directions or other measures where applicable standards are violated. While these standards do not have the force of statutory law, they provide an additional layer of professional accountability for television news broadcasters.

Judicial Approach: Balancing Press Freedom and Regulation

Although there is no express mention of “freedom of the press” in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), including in landmark judgments such as Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India and Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India. However, constitutional freedom is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The judicial approach has therefore sought to protect journalistic freedom while recognising the responsibilities and limitations that accompany its exercise.

In Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that journalistic freedom lies at the core of Article 19(1)(a) and recognised that airing views on television shows constitutes an exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. At the same time, the Court clarified that such freedom is not absolute and remains subject to Article 19(2), and that restrictions on fundamental rights must satisfy the proportionality standard. While multiple FIRs arising from the same television programme were found to have a stifling effect on journalistic freedom, the Court clarified that Article 19(1)(a) does not confer immunity from investigation into an offence.³

The protection accorded to journalistic freedom is accompanied by a corresponding responsibility in the manner in which news is gathered and disseminated. In Jaideep Bose v. Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court reiterated that while freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is paramount, persons working in the media, particularly those in key positions and authors, must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing statements, news or opinions. The Court noted the media’s ability to shape public opinion and influence public sentiments and perceptions, observing that a single article or report can cause serious and lasting harm to reputation. It therefore emphasised the need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, particularly where the integrity of individuals or institutions may be affected and observed that news should be published in the public interest and in good faith.

The courts have also recognised that the exercise of the media’s function may be subject to limitations where reporting affects other fundamental rights. In TV Today Network Ltd. v. ABC, the Delhi High Court upheld an award of ₹5 lakh as damages against TV Today Network Ltd. for violating the privacy and confidentiality rights of a minor sexual-abuse victim through a telecast on its Aaj Tak channel. The telecast disclosed details including the victim’s father’s name, official designation and address, the location of the mother’s residence and the minor’s voice, which could lead to identification of the child. The Court upheld the finding that the telecast blatantly violated the minor’s right to privacy. It further emphasised that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that a person’s decision as to the extent to which they wish to enforce that right must be respected. The decision thus illustrates that the dissemination of news does not permit disregard of privacy and confidentiality, particularly where reporting concerns a minor victim.

A similar balance arises where media reporting has the potential to prejudice judicial proceedings. In Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI, the Supreme Court held that freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial and the proper administration of justice. The Court recognised that courts may issue postponement orders restricting publication or broadcast for a limited period where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of a trial or the administration of justice, subject to the requirements of necessity and proportionality. The Court further observed that excessive prejudicial publicity which usurps the functions of the court may interfere with pending proceedings and prejudice the presumption of innocence. It emphasised that the content and context of potentially prejudicial publications must be assessed on a case-to-case basis.

The limits of television reporting are particularly evident where coverage may affect national security and the safety of persons. In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court criticised the live television coverage of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, noting that the terrorists and their collaborators were watching the broadcasts and obtaining information about the positions and movements of security forces, their weapons and operational activities. The Court observed that such coverage made the security operations more difficult, dangerous and risky. It held that freedom of speech and expression cannot justify conduct that threatens the right to life under Article 21 or places national security in jeopardy. The Court further observed that the coverage could have been shown after the terrorists were neutralised and the security operations had concluded and held that the manner of live coverage did not serve any national interest or social cause and instead placed national security in jeopardy.

These decisions demonstrate that the judicial approach is not to treat press freedom and regulation as mutually exclusive. Article 19(1)(a) protects the media’s freedom to report and disseminate information, but that freedom operates alongside the rights to privacy, fair trial and life, as well as considerations of national security. The courts have accordingly examined the nature and consequences of particular reporting, applying principles such as proportionality, necessity, accuracy, fairness and responsible reporting to determine the permissible limits of media freedom.

Balancing Freedom of the Press with Responsible Television Reporting

Freedom of the press is central to a democratic society, but its exercise carries corresponding responsibilities. Television news has a particularly wide and immediate reach. The manner in which information is presented can therefore have consequences beyond the dissemination of the information itself. The regulatory framework governing television broadcasting and the judicial decisions discussed above reflect an attempt to preserve the freedom to report while placing limits on reporting that causes identifiable harm to other rights or public interests.

The Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 illustrates this balance. The restrictions under Rule 6 do not prevent television channels from reporting on matters of public importance or criticising individuals, institutions or authorities. They seek to regulate particular forms of content, including defamatory or deliberately false material, content promoting communal attitudes, contemptuous content and certain forms of maligning or slandering individuals or groups.  Additionally, the advisories issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, reinforce these obligations and provide for regulatory consequences where the applicable standards are violated.

The case laws discussed hereinabove also indicate that the responsibility of a broadcaster cannot be assessed only by asking whether the subject of a report was a matter of public interest. The manner and content of the reporting are relevant. In Jaideep Bose (Supra), the Supreme Court stressed the need for caution, accuracy and fairness in media reporting, particularly because a report can influence public perception and cause lasting damage to reputation. Similarly, in TV Today Network Ltd. v. ABC (Supra), although the underlying incident was a matter being reported by the media, the disclosure of details capable of identifying a minor sexual-abuse victim was held to violate the child’s right to privacy. The decision shows that the public interest in reporting an incident does not, by itself, justify disclosure of every detail connected with it.

The same consideration applies to reporting on matters before courts. The media has an important role in informing the public about judicial proceedings, but reporting may become problematic where it creates a real risk of prejudicing a pending proceeding. In Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (Supra), the Supreme Court recognised the possibility of postponing publication or broadcast where there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of the trial or the administration of justice. At the same time, the Court required such measures to satisfy necessity and proportionality. Thus, the judgment does not place a general restriction on reporting of judicial proceedings; it recognises a limited power to prevent serious prejudice in appropriate cases.

The consequences of television reporting can be even more serious where an ongoing security operation is involved. In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab (Supra), the Supreme Court noted that live television coverage of the Mumbai terrorist attacks disclosed information concerning the positions and movements of security forces to the terrorists and their collaborators. The Court found that such coverage made the operations more difficult and dangerous and held that freedom of speech and expression could not be invoked to justify conduct that placed national security or the right to life in jeopardy. The case demonstrates that the immediate dissemination of information may itself become relevant when assessing the legality and responsibility of television reporting.

At the same time, the existence of regulatory restrictions cannot be viewed as permitting unrestricted control over journalistic content. In Arnab Ranjan Goswami (Supra), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that journalistic freedom lies at the core of Article 19(1)(a) and that restrictions must satisfy the requirements of Article 19(2) and proportionality. The regulatory framework must therefore be applied with regard to the particular content and circumstances of a broadcast and the specific harm or legal interest sought to be protected.

The balance, therefore, is not between unrestricted reporting on one hand and regulation on the other. It lies in protecting the media’s ability to report matters of public importance while requiring broadcasters to exercise care where their reporting may affect reputation, privacy, the fairness of judicial proceedings, public order or national security. Accuracy, fairness and responsible presentation are particularly important in television news because of the immediacy and reach of the medium. The regulatory and judicial framework ultimately seeks to ensure that the exercise of press freedom remains consistent with the rights and interests that the Constitution and law seek to protect.

Conclusion

Freedom of the press remains an important safeguard for public discussion and access to information, but it does not operate independently of other rights and legal interests. The regulatory framework places specific restrictions on television content, while the courts have considered the circumstances in which reporting may affect privacy, reputation, judicial proceedings, the right to life or national security. The decisions discussed above also make clear that regulation of television news cannot be divorced from the manner and consequences of the reporting in question. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that television channels remain free to report matters of public interest while exercising the degree of accuracy, fairness and care required where such reporting may affect the rights of others or other protected interests.

FAQs

References –

1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Ibid.
3. 1950
4. Constitution of India, 1950
5. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
6. The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, Rule 6(1)(c), (d), (f) and (i)
7. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Advisory: Adherence to Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 by Private Satellite TV channels, Advisory No. N-41011/06/2023-BC-III dated 08.06.2023, available at:  https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-02/Adviosry_Advisory_Adherence%20to%20Programme%20Code%20prescribed%20under%20the%20Cable%20Television%20Networks%20%28Regulation%29%20Act%2C%201995%20by%20Private%20Satellite%20TV%20channels.%2008.06.2023.pdf
11. The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
12. (1972) 2 SCC 788.
13. (1985) 1 SCC 641
14. (2020) 14 SCC 12
15. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 348
16. 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4855
17. (2012) 10 SCC 603
18. (2012) 9 SCC 1
19. Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
20. (2020) 14 SCC 12

More from Neeti Niyaman Team –