NEW DELHI: Describing the efforts of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry towards regulation of television as a ?farce? and the self-regulatory mechanisms as ineffective, MediaWatch-India has sent notice to Broadcast Content Complaints Council to expeditiously take action on certain issues raised by it or face action in a court of law.

The MWI - a voluntary initiative to promote decency and accountability in various media ? says the issues raised and suggestions made by it concerns basic rights of entire gamut of Indian TV audience, and so it has given the Indian Broadcasting Foundation and the BCCC 15 days to initiate action / spell out decisions in respect of each of the issues raised by it.

The letter regrets that there is no comprehensive and systematic regime of self-regulation put in place by the broadcasting fraternity or any semblance of ?legal regulation? by the I&B Ministry in its capacity as content regulator under extant legal provisions.

"The establishment of an independent/statutory authority to regulate broadcast content is still an elusive dream. The unfortunate result of this regulatory vacuum has been that millions of Indian viewers are rendered voiceless without any basic/credible grievance redressal mechanism against the content-related violations by the channels, which is adversely affecting their basic rights as consumers of broadcast content."

Inadequate publicity to Inter-Ministerial Committee

Referring to the role of the Ministry, it says adequate publicity has not been given to the Inter-Ministerial Committee. Furthermore, the Ministry has failed to prescribe any well-defined terms of reference or rules of procedure for systematic functioning of the committee. "Being a pure bureaucratic apparatus headed by the Additional Secretary of the Ministry (with a lone exception of a member from ASCI), the IMC is meeting rarely to deliberate on the complaints received against the satellite TV and FM Radio Channels".

The Ministry has not instituted any separate mechanism for systematic receipt, acknowledgement and reply of complaints received against the TV channels nor provided any dedicated secretarial set up to aid and assist IMC in processing the complaints. As no time limit is prescribed, the decision-making involved in taking action against TV channels by the Ministry is "dead slow resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of complaints against TV channels".

MWI also refers to the Annual Report of the Ministry which says ?It is neither possible nor desirable for the Government to monitor and regulate the volume and diversity of content provided, which is increasingly getting localized. Any kind of direct control by the Government is seen as violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution.?

MWI wants to know why there is no representation of civic society apart from ASCI in the IMC.

Reports of EMMC not acted upon

While the Ministry is receiving regular reports on monthly basis from Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) regarding hundreds of violations by the satellite TV and FM radio channels, the Inter-ministerial committee is not processing them seriously and the Ministry is hardly taking any action against the erring channels, the MWI alleges.

While the local cable networks and satellite channels are bound by the same programme and advertisement codes under the Cable Network (Regulation) Rules, 1994, the Ministry is according differential treatment to satellite channels by adopting a very liberal code of ?penalties? in dealing with content-related complaints against satellite channels by simply issuing advisories or warning; or requiring the channel to scroll an apology for a specified number of days; apart from suspension of broadcast for specified time period.

It alleges that the Ministry has been forwarding complaints to the BCCC or the News Broadcasting Standards Authority of the News Broadcasters Association without any enabling provision in law to that effect.

"If the government truly believes in self-regulation, it should have taken efforts to facilitate/mandate for bringing together of broadcasting fraternity under one umbrella, should have formalized the self-regulatory code and penalties by consensus and by giving some sort of legal recognition for the decisions of self-regulatory bodies and thereby limiting the applicability of extant laws and by prescribing some minimum standards to be followed by them in the interests of viewers."

Self-regulation neither comprehensive nor deterrent

Referring to self-regulation regime by NBA/IBF as ?neither comprehensive nor deterrent?, MWI also points out that less than 300 broadcasters are members of these two bodies and the majority are free to flout any Code.

It is seen that the self-regulation efforts initiated in the last few years by the broadcasting industry in the form of NBA and IBF, ?though commendable?, are found to be not comprehensive and having limited efficacy due to several serious drawbacks.

The regime put in place by NBA and IBF is hardly ?viewer-centric? so as to inspire any public confidence in ?self-regulation?, much less to have a deterrent effect on the erring Channels.

IBF and NBA have not asked their member channels to allot any time to explain to the viewers about the newly introduced self-regulatory procedure and the fact that the complaint system is a two-tier one.

MWI also notes that no legal recognition is given by the government for the self-regulatory codes evolved by the bodies and their decisions but for the ad hoc ?practices? put forth by the Ministry like forwarding complaints against member channels of NBA/IBF to NBSA/BCCC respectively without any enabling legal provision to this effect. Furthermore, there is no appellate mechanism presently available for complainants/broadcasters against the decisions of BCCC & NBSA in case of their inaction or arbitrary decisions.

MWI wants the IBF to modify the relevant clause of BCCC by including a provision for deterrent financial penalty in cases where BCCC holds that the member channel had violated the code or where a member failed to abide by the direction of BCCC.