Can Broadcasters be held Liable during live broadcasts?
Answer: Yes, if the content aired contains (1) mockery of the justice delivery system, (2) causes public disorder or harm communal harmony ;(3) causes inaccurate / unreliable information (3) defamatory or injurious to the reputation of individuals or organizations; (4) is not in violation of copyright and (5) is without consent and (6) violates privacy.
Some cases have been summarized herein below:
1.?????In the Sushant Singh Rajput Media Trial the Bombay High Court observed that : freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and the role of the press/media to discover the truth and to ensure proper functioning of the democratic process is undoubtedly salutary, at the same time, the press/media must remember that its concern for discovery of truth and maintenance of purity in all streams of good governance by opening up channels of free discussion of issues should stop short of exceeding the permissible legal and Constitutional means. Since here we are majorly concerned with “administration of justice”, any report of the press/media, having the propensity of tilting the balance against fair and impartial “administration of justice”, could make a mockery of the justice delivery system rendering ‘truth’ a casualty. The duty of the press/media to have news items printed/telecast based on true and correct version relating to incidents worth reporting accurately and without any distortion/embellishment as well as without taking sides, cannot therefore be overemphasized[1].
?
2.?????Also in Dr.Shashi Tharoor’s Case the Delhi High Court[2] has laid down the principle denying an injunction and observed that (i) Freedom of expression excludes freedom of media and constitutes one of the essential foundations of the democratic society, which is restricted/curtailed by Article 19(2); (ii) There is a balance between strike of competing rights; (iii) After considering the rule in England for an injunction that the Court must be satisfied that it would inevitably come to a conclusion that the publication was defamatory, the Court held that in India, the Courts have the power to pass prepublication injunction, if the two pronged tests of necessity and proportionality are satisfied and there are no reasonable alternative methods or measure are available to prevent the said risk; (iv) A public figure additionally has to prove that the publication was precipitated by malice; (v) The Court must take care that any order passed does not result in a gag order or a super injunction; (vi) There is a need to balance competing rights, which can be done only on a case to case basis; and (vii) In a live debate or an interview, it is not possible to run a disclaimer as no broadcaster can predict or know in advance what a participant or an interviewer is going to state.
?
3.?????Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra[3], “Every journalist/reporter has an overriding duty to the society of educating the masses with fair, accurate, trustworthy and responsible reports relating to reportable events/incidents and above all to the standards of his/her profession. Thus, the temptation to sensationalize should be resisted.[4]”
?
?
4.?????Shiv Sena v. The Indian Express Ltd[5], the Bombay High Court held that broadcasters are responsible for the content aired during live telecasts and must ensure that it does not cause public disorder or harm communal harmony. The case involved a live telecast of a political rally where the speakers made inflammatory speeches. The court held that the broadcaster was liable for the content aired during the live telecast and directed them to exercise greater caution in the future.
?
5.?????Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. SEBI[6], the Securities Appellate Tribunal held that broadcasters are responsible for the accuracy of information transmitted during live shows. The case involved a live show in which a market expert made inaccurate statements about a company, causing its stock prices to plummet. The tribunal observed and warned the that the broadcaster that it may be held liable for the damages suffered by investors who relied on the inaccurate information.
?
?
6.?????In the case of Chintamani Rao v. The Indian Express Ltd. (1987)[7], the Bombay High Court held that broadcasters are responsible for ensuring that the content aired during live telecasts is not defamatory or injurious to the reputation of individuals or organizations. The case involved a live telecast of a press conference where defamatory statements were made against the plaintiff. The court held that the broadcaster was liable for the defamatory content aired during the live telecast.
?
7.?????In another case, titled Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal (2019)[8], the Delhi High Court held that broadcasters are responsible for ensuring that the content aired during live telecasts is not in violation of copyright laws. The case involved a live telecast of a cricket match where the plaintiff alleged that the broadcaster had infringed its copyright by using its logo and trademarks without permission. The court held that the broadcaster was liable for the copyright infringement and directed them to pay damages to the plaintiff. While dismissing the suit without costs, the court decided that the defendants must wait two minutes before using the information in an audio/visual broadcast of the plaintiff. The decision has been appealed by the plaintiff and an order of the court's division bench is awaited.
?
?
8.?????In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2020)[9], the Delhi High Court held that broadcasters are responsible for ensuring that the content aired during live telecasts is not in violation of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case involved a live telecast of a reality TV show where the plaintiff alleged that the broadcaster had violated her privacy by airing her personal information without her consent. fair comments must be based on facts and must not contain imputation corrupt motives on the person and it should be made on the basis of all the facts known to the party concerned. Similarly, the ?defamatory? means that if a person deliberately makes a comment or publishes anything or by other means of any imputation against another person by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or by means thereof other third persons are likely to be induced to avoid him and damage result to the person concern whom they are made, he has right of action. A party cannot absolve himself in case he will intermingling of facts with possible expressions of opinion, unless the words which are so pleaded perceived meaning are true or fair comment. Court held that the broadcaster was liable for the privacy violation and directed them to pay damages to the plaintiff.
?
9.?????Privacy issues in the Indian media came into sharp focus in 2008, during the coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The intrusive live television coverage is perceived to have compromised national security and endangered the lives of the security personnel, hostages and common people. Privacy violations and inaccurate reportage have also topped the complaints before the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA)[10] and they have issued warnings, imposed fines and directed apologies to be issued to complainants or broadcast on television. These include the coverage of partying students of the NALSAR University in Hyderabad by Sakshi Television; CNN-IBN displaying a slide with the name of a complainant in a sexual harassment matter; CNN-IBN carrying an interview of the father of a child rape victim during December 16, 2012 protests following the Delhi gang rape; and Aaj Tak Channel airing details of a matrimonial dispute. International experience about invasion of privacy by the media has been no different. Lord Leveson, for example, has also pointed out that his report was commissioned by the Government “sparked by public revulsion about a single action - the hacking of the mobile phone of a murdered teenager” by a media entity.
Therefore, in conclusion during the live broadcasts the following requires to be ensured:-
??????i.????????No person shall pass any comment on the justice delivery system, under a pending investigation and on governance.
?????ii.????????No person shall predict in advance what a participant or an interviewer is going to state.
???iii.????????No issue shall be sensationalized unnecessarily
???iv.????????No event/content broadcasted shall cause public disorder or disruption of communal harmony
?????v.????????No information communicated shall be inaccurate
???vi.????????No information/comment shall be defamatory against a person or lawful entity
??vii.????????No content aired shall violate the copyright of the owner of the content, therefore source check is important
?viii.????????No content or comments should violate privacy.
?
?
[1] Para 228, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/bombay-high-court-judgement-in-ssr-media-trial-387625.pdf
[2] Shashi Tharoor vs. Arnab Goswami, [CS(OS)273 (2017)]
[3] (2010) 1 SCC 457.
[4] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/01/19/bombay-hc-on-media-reporting-obligation-of-investigators-media-trial-freedom-of-press-and-the-proverbial-lakshman-rekha-for-media-houses-read-this-detailed-report-unravelling-s/
[5] (2003) 1 BOMLR 576
[6] Appeal No. 65 of 2012 (SAT)
[7] 1987 CriLJ 1312 BOM
[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160841206/ ???????????????????