Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be highlighted for your attention. Read carefully. A state of emergency can be directly imposed or it can creep up on you in unexpected ways. Following the Narendra Modi government’s decision to
Read the passage given below and then answer the questions given below the passage. Some words may be highlighted for your attention. Read carefully.
A state of emergency can be directly imposed or it can creep up on you in unexpected ways. Following the Narendra Modi government’s decision to ban the Hindi news channel NDTV India for an entire day (now put on hold) as punishment for its coverage of the terror attack on the Pathankot military base, the question being asked is whether the cumulative actions of this government reflect the same mentality that led Indira Gandhi to impose a state of emergency in 1975—an inability to tolerate opposition or dissent.
The government justifies its action against NDTV India on the grounds that its coverage of the Pathankot anti-terror operation gave away vital information that could have been used by those directing the attack on the military base. It claims the channel contravened rule 6(1)(p) of the programme code under the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2015. But the rule itself is problematic as is the mechanism for enforcing it. The body tasked with deciding whether a channel has transgressed the rule is the Inter-Ministerial Committee. No one with a journalistic background or knowledge of how 24-hour news networks function is on the committee. Yet, the committee judges and pronounces punishment without any judicial oversight.
The provision under which NDTV India has been hauled up is the end result of a process that began after the 26 November 2008 terror attack on Mumbai. Leading television channels, including NDTV, were criticised by the government for helping the minders of the terrorists by giving away precise information even as the attack was on. No action was taken against these channels but discussions began about bringing in a provision prohibiting live coverage of such operations. A committee headed by former Chief Justice J S Verma formed by the News Broadcasters Association, a self-regulatory body, formulated guidelines on coverage of such attacks. However, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the time was not convinced that this would suffice and instead came up with amendments to the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 that would have given the police and government officials arbitrary powers to block live transmission and confiscate equipment if they concluded that the network was going against “national interest.” Fortunately, the government heeded the strong objections of the networks and backed down. In 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured heads of news channels that no changes would be made without consultations. Yet, within a year of the Modi government assuming power, rule 6(1)(p) was added to the program code under the Cable Television Networks Rules.
The Modi government appears to have temporarily backed down in the face of strong protests from many journalistic associations and bodies and possibly also because NDTV has moved the Supreme Court. Yet, the threat remains. By picking on NDTV India, known for its critical coverage of the ruling party and government compared to other channels, the government is clearly seeking to send out a message. It is starting from the media questioning of its recent actions such as the “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control in Kashmir. So, perhaps, it has decided that a dose of indirect censorship will have the “chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression”. The arbitrary use of power against NDTV India ought to be a wake-up call for the Indian media.
What problems are cited with using of the rule 6 (1) (p)?
1). It has to be added to the program code under Cable Television Rules
2). The Committee enforcing it does not have any journalist on the panel
3). The Committee members use it without any judicial supervision
4). Both 2 & 3
1 answers
The second paragraph can be dug in deep, in order to extract information pertaining to rule 6 (1) (p).
The second paragraph highlights that the Inter-Ministerial Committee that was constituted to investigate the issue contained no one with a journalistic background or knowledge of how 24-hour news networks function. Moreover, the decision of the ban the without having a judicial opinion or vigilance. These were the main issues associated with the implementation of such a ruling.
However, the addition of such a clause to the program code under Cable Television Rules cannot The third as the usage problem. Hence, option 4 is correct.