मित्रो, पिछले दिनों हमने केन्द्रीय सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्री अरुण जेटली के पत्रकारिता पर दिए अभिभाषण के कुछ अंश हिन्दी में दिए थे. यहाँ अंग्रेज़ी भाषण के अंश दे रहे हैं:
Constitution
gives a pre-eminent position to free speech, media must utilise this with care
January 24, 2015 The
issue of media freedom is today beyond any form of debate. Article 19(1)(a)
guarantees freedom of expression. In India — unlike in some other jurisdictions
— free speech in terms of freedom of Press, is not a separate right and it is
included in the larger ambit of freedom of expression. And those who drafted
the Constitution, created an exception.
The
exception was, that whereas in relation to other fundamental rights, you had a
general exception of what is reasonable, could be restricted on the fundamental
right — the generalised restriction was not there in the context of free
speech. So, free speech was given a more elevated status, and you only define 6
or 7 circumstances on account of which there could be a restriction on free
speech. So, a general concept that there is a reasonable restriction against
free speech, is no longer a valid consideration.
This
preeminent position which has been given, has now to be utilised by media with
great circumspection. This is particularly because media now forms the eyes and
ears as far as citizens are concerned, it also has a very powerful impact.
The
second important aspect is, that whereas the Supreme Court laid down the law of
freedom of speech and freedom of Press — in context of other fundamental
rights, we have had our up and downs; the habeas corpus case was a low point as
far as personal life and liberty is concerned. But in relation to Article
19(1)(a), consistently with every judgment, the predominant thrust of the
Supreme Court has been to protect, preserve and to expand the right of freedom
of speech and freedom of Press. And therefore, we rarely have a view taken by
the judicial institution which curtails the right as far as free speech is
concerned.
Today,
this right extends not merely to your right to report — but its horizons have
been widened: What should be the size of a newspaper? The court said that the
government can’t restrict it. What should be the volume of advertisements
vis-a-vis news in a newspaper? The court said the government can’t get into it.
What should be the extent of taxation on a newspaper? Now, any form of taxation
is normally upheld, unless it is confiscatory in character. But in case of
19(1)(a), if the impact of unreasonable taxation is to compel a medium to raise
its cost and reduce its circulation, it impinges on 19(1)(a). So whereas
taxation generally would be judged on principles of Article 14 and 19(1)(g),
taxation judged in the context of 19(1)(a) is entirely different.
And
therefore, the distinction between content of a medium and business of the
medium has also been obliterated. Is the business of a newspaper or a news
channel entirely 19(1)(g)? The answer is “No”, to the extent that if you pinch
the pockets of a newspaper or a news channel, and therefore, infringe on its
free speech, you impact adversely on Article 19(1)(a). And therefore, the
business itself can’t be segregated as far as free speech is concerned. The
right to know, the right to information — these are all the rights which have
been read into Article 19(1)(a) with its horizons today expanded.
What
are the threats today? Traditionally, a newspaper or a channel could be banned.
The days of bans are over. You can censor a medium; in fact, part of the fear
that was created during Emergency was on account of the censorship of newspapers
itself. But today, technology has made censorship an impossibility. So assuming
there was Emergency imposed today under Article 352, the impact of censorship
would be nil. Because the satellite itself defies geographical boundaries —
emails don’t honour it, the fax machine doesn’t honour it.
And
therefore, what had to be secretly distributed as Emergency literature, would
today be freely available all over the country. And the more you ban, greater
would be the curiosity to access that material! So the threats really are no
longer such great external threats. You may have odd cases where the state
itself takes extra interest in setting up its own medium. But the threats that
are coming now — i would use the word “challenges” rather than “threats” — are
within, on account of the nature of the medium itself.
As far
as the sense of responsibility is concerned, it is difficult to define this.
Justice Ravindran mentioned that the government would try and discipline those
who are outside the scope of the self-regulatory mechanism. I find it extremely
difficult, because it may have its own pitfalls if the government got into the
business of starting to discipline media organisations. I would be more
comfortable if viewers or readers decided to disapprove if they find media way
off the mark. Rather than government step in and tell media what to report and
what not to report, i’d rather that viewers — just with the power of the remote
in their hands — decide to switch to something else. (Courtesy: The Times if India)
Excerpts
from Justice JS Verma Memorial Lecture by Arun Jaitley, Union Minister of
Finance, Company Affairs, Information & Broadcasting. The full speech can
be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwOIpNovCTk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gi1_nUWaAg
No comments:
Post a Comment