Editorial . . . . .
The Supreme Court of India had previously made sharp remarks about the standard of debates and the responsibility of anchors on Indian television channels. On September 21, a bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy criticized TV networks for unchecked hate speech as well as the dubious role that TV anchors were playing. “Hate speech is layered,” the justices observed. You can kill someone in a variety of ways, slowly or otherwise. Based on a firm conviction, they keep us captivated. During the hearing of a number of petitions in October and December 2021, the Supreme Court had already made similar observations, as may be recalled. On September 21, a Supreme Court panel ordered the Union of India to state clearly if it intended to pass legislation implementing the Law Commission’s proposals to prohibit incitement to hatred. Orally, the apex court voiced its displeasure with the actions taken by the administration and questioned why it was “remaining a quiet spectator.” There are almost 900 active TV channels, 388 of which are news channels, and their impact must not be underestimated. Many of the news networks in India have evolved into shouting platforms that broadcast every news item as breaking news in an effort to boost TRP. Instead of disseminating reliable and practical knowledge that truly influences people’s lives, they accomplish this by producing exciting content for their prime time shows. The majority of TV channels give the negative effects of broadcasting hate content little thought. Any panellist who does not agree with the agenda being promoted is yelled down by the anchor people on television. As the news argument develops into a compelling drama in which the participants lose their respect for language while disputing with one another, many anchors believe it is OK to shout with harmful and indecent words. Many anchors have gained notoriety for frequently interjecting when a panellist who might have a different opinion is speaking. If a panellist happens to criticise the administration, certain anchor persons have been known to engage in a verbal fight with them. Although the media was once thought of as the fourth pillar of democracy, it has now merely evolved into a tool used by political parties to spread their propaganda and shape public opinion because the majority of the major news networks in our nation are either directly or indirectly controlled by political parties. Because of this, there are now two types of media: pro-government and anti-government. One of the reasons for the rise in poisonous arguments is the political influence that media organizations have over them. When a politician delivers a hate speech, it becomes news for these platforms, and when they air it during prime time, it only gets worse. Many news outlets deliberately breach people’s privacy, openly insult them, and begin forming judgements about them in their newsrooms even before the Indian court has had a chance to hear the case. All of this is done in the name of freedom of speech.
The important recommendations of the Supreme Court must be implemented, and political parties and civil society organisations should make the country aware of them. Moreover, it is beyond dispute to say, it hinders social progress and causes harm to communities and society as well. It can negatively impact everyone if it is allowed to continue. This problem presents a greater challenge in a nation like India with a variety of castes, creeds, faiths, and languages. Debate, criticism, and free and thorough reporting all improve public awareness, and strengthen the basic spirit of democracy.