Media Law: Complete Notes

About this subject

Media Law governs the press, broadcasting, cinema and digital media. Studied in five units, it runs from the history of how the press won its freedom to the ethical choices a journalist must make where the law gives no clear answer. It is at work whenever a person reads a newspaper, watches a news channel, streams a web series or forwards a meme, so each rule is best understood by connecting it with everyday life.

For every important case, note the facts, the question before the court, the decision and, above all, the principle, because the principle is what is applied in examination answers, in judiciary examinations, UGC NET and CLAT PG, and in practice as a lawyer, journalist or content creator.

Meaning of Media

Media is the plural of medium, a channel through which something passes. In Media Law, media means the channels through which news, ideas and entertainment reach the public:

• Print media: newspapers and magazines.
• Broadcast media: radio and television.
• Cinema: a medium of its own.
• Digital media: news websites, streaming platforms, social media and messaging apps.

Media as the fourth pillar of democracy

The first three pillars of democracy are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The press is the fourth, because it watches the other three and tells the people what they are doing.

The idea of the press as the Fourth Estate comes from English history. The Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle wrote that Edmund Burke once said there were three estates in Parliament, but in the reporters' gallery sat a fourth estate, more important than them all.

Why media needs law

Media has great power. A single report can expose corruption and save lives; a single false report can destroy a person's reputation, prejudice a trial or spark a riot. Media Law therefore balances two sets of interests, and courts strike this balance again and again.

On one side	On the other side
The freedom to speak, publish and broadcast	Reputation, privacy, public order, decency and a fair trial

Evolution of Media

The printing press and licensing

Media law begins with the printing press. Around the middle of the fifteenth century, Johannes Gutenberg in Germany developed printing with movable type, so ideas could for the first time be copied quickly and cheaply. Rulers realised that printed words could challenge their power and began to control printing through licences. In England, for a long time, nothing could be printed without official permission.

Milton, the end of licensing and Blackstone

• 1644: the poet John Milton wrote Areopagitica against this system. Truth grows stronger in open debate, and licensing books before publication kills ideas before they are born.
• 1695: the licensing of the press in England finally lapsed.
• 1769: the English jurist William Blackstone explained the new position. The liberty of the press means laying no previous restraints upon publications; it does not mean freedom from punishment for unlawful matter after it is published.

Prior restraint and punishment after publication

Point	Prior restraint	Punishment after publication
Stage	Stops speech before it reaches the public	Deals with speech after it is out
Examples	Censorship, a ban	A prosecution, a suit for damages
How courts view it	The more serious danger to free speech	The lesser danger, compared with prior restraint

New media, same old question

Then came daily newspapers, cinema at the end of the nineteenth century, radio in the early twentieth century, television after the Second World War, and the internet at the end of the twentieth century. Each new medium raised the same question in a new form: how free should it be, and who should control it?

Why Free Speech Matters

There are four classic reasons why the law protects free speech.

1. The search for truth. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1859), argued that even an opinion believed to be false should not be silenced. It may be true after all; and even if false, it helps us understand the truth better by challenging it.
2. Democracy. People govern themselves through elections, but can choose wisely only if they know the facts and hear different views. Free speech, and especially a free press, is the oxygen of democracy.
3. Self-fulfilment. Expressing oneself through words, art, music or film is part of being human. When the State silences a person, it treats that person as less than a full person.
4. Safety valve. When people can voice their anger openly, they are less likely to turn to violence.

Sources of Freedom of Speech and Expression

International sources

• Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789 (French Revolution), Article 11: the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Every citizen may speak, write and print freely, but must answer for the abuse of this liberty in cases fixed by law.
• First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1791: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The text protects the press by name and lists no restrictions, so American courts have developed the limits themselves.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 19: everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. After the Second World War, free expression thus became a universal human right.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 19: makes this a binding treaty right. Article 19(3) allows restrictions that are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. India became a party in 1979.
• European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10: protects the same freedom in Europe, with similar restrictions.

Indian sources

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the main source, read with the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2).
• Statutes on the press, cinema, broadcasting and information technology.
• Judgments of Indian courts.
• Codes of ethics of self-regulatory bodies.

Theories of the Press

Societies have answered differently the question of what the relationship between the press and the State should be. In 1956, three American scholars, Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm, published Four Theories of the Press.

1. Authoritarian theory: the press exists to support the government. The ruler decides what may be printed, through licences, censorship and punishment, and criticism of the government is not allowed. Much of British press policy in India followed this model.
2. Libertarian theory: grew from the ideas of Milton and Mill. The press is free from government control; it is a marketplace of ideas and a watchdog over the government, and people are trusted to separate truth from falsehood for themselves. Weakness: a free market may be captured by a few rich owners and may chase profit over truth.
3. Social responsibility theory: grew from the work of the Hutchins Commission in the United States, whose 1947 report was titled A Free and Responsible Press. The press is free, but this freedom carries a duty to society: it must be accurate and fair, and give space to different groups. If the press fails, society may step in through codes of ethics, press councils and, where needed, some regulation. India's Press Council reflects this theory.
4. Soviet communist theory: the press is owned by the State or the ruling party and serves as a tool to educate people in the party's ideology. Private ownership and criticism of the party are not allowed.

Later theories

Later scholars, especially Denis McQuail, added two more:

• Development media theory: in newly independent and developing countries, the media should support national goals like literacy, health and farming.
• Democratic participant theory: ordinary citizens and small communities should have their own media, such as community radio and, today, social media, instead of depending only on big media houses.

The World Press Freedom Index

• Published every year by Reporters Without Borders, an international non-governmental organisation founded in France in 1985 and often called RSF, from its French name.
• First published in 2002; it now ranks 180 countries and territories.
• Each country gets a score from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best, and falls into one of five categories: good, satisfactory, problematic, difficult and very serious.
• The score has two parts: a count of abuses against journalists in connection with their work, such as killings and arrests; and a questionnaire answered by press freedom specialists, such as journalists, researchers, academics and human rights defenders.

The five indicators (since 2022)

Indicator	What it examines
Political	How far the media is free from political pressure, and whether the government respects its independence
Economic	Economic pressures, such as concentrated ownership, dependence on government advertising and the business interests of owners
Legal	The legal framework, for example censorship laws, defamation laws, and whether journalists can protect their sources
Sociocultural	Pressure from society, such as attacks linked to religion, caste, gender or culture
Security	The physical and mental safety of journalists, including killings, arrests, threats and online harassment

India's position

India's position has been low for several years: rank 150 in 2022, 161 in 2023, 159 in 2024 and 151 in 2025.

In the 2026 index, India is at rank 157 out of 180, with a score of about 32, which places it in the very serious category. At the top, Norway has held the first place for the tenth year in a row. For the first time in the history of the index, more than half of the countries of the world fall into the difficult or very serious categories.

The Government of India has told Parliament that it does not agree with these rankings. It has criticised the index for a very small sample size, little weight to the fundamentals of democracy, and a methodology it considers questionable and not transparent.

History of the Press in India

Many present-day press laws were born in the struggle between the press and the British rulers.

Hicky's Bengal Gazette (1780 to 1782)

• India's first newspaper, started in Calcutta on 29 January 1780 by an Irishman, James Augustus Hicky.
• Hicky boldly attacked the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and other officials.
• In 1781 he was convicted of libel and jailed, but went on printing from jail.
• In 1782, after fresh lawsuits by Hastings, the court at Calcutta ordered his types to be seized, and the paper closed.

From its very first years, the Indian press was in conflict with power.

Censorship and licensing

• Censorship of the Press Act, 1799: passed by Lord Wellesley, fearing French influence during the wars with Napoleon. Newspapers had to submit their material to the government before printing, and print the names of their printer, editor and owner.
• Licensing rules, 1823: brought in by the acting Governor-General, John Adam. No one could publish a newspaper without a licence. Raja Ram Mohan Roy protested strongly and closed his Persian weekly, Mirat-ul-Akhbar, rather than accept this control.
• 1835: Charles Metcalfe repealed the licensing rules, and is remembered as the liberator of the Indian press.
• Licensing Act, 1857: after the revolt of 1857, it brought back licensing for a short period.
• Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: required printers and publishers to register, and every book and newspaper to carry the names of its printer and publisher. It governed the registration of newspapers for more than 150 years.

Vernacular Press Act, 1878

Passed by Lord Lytton, it targeted only newspapers in Indian languages, not English papers, and critics called it the Gagging Act. The Amrita Bazar Patrika of Calcutta escaped it by turning itself into an English weekly within a week. Lord Ripon repealed the Act in 1882.

The press and the national movement

• Newspapers Incitement to Offences Act, 1908: allowed the government to seize the presses of newspapers that incited violence.
• Indian Press Act, 1910: demanded security deposits from printers and publishers, which could be forfeited.
• 1908: Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted of sedition for his articles in Kesari and imprisoned in Mandalay for six years.
• Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi made newspapers such as Young India and Harijan weapons of the freedom struggle.
• 1921: a committee headed by Tej Bahadur Sapru recommended the repeal of the Acts of 1908 and 1910, and they were repealed soon after.
• Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931: during the Civil Disobedience Movement, it brought back strict controls.

After independence

The Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech. In 1952 the government appointed the First Press Commission, headed by Justice G.S. Rajadhyaksha. Its 1954 report led to:

• the Working Journalists Act, 1955;
• the office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India;
• a law linking the price and pages of newspapers;
• a Press Council, first set up in 1966 under the Press Council Act, 1965.

The darkest period came during the Emergency, which began in June 1975. Censorship was imposed on the press, many journalists were jailed, and the Press Council itself was abolished. After the Emergency, Parliament passed a new Press Council Act in 1978, and the Council was set up again in 1979. A Second Press Commission studied the press between 1978 and 1982.

Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023

This Act replaced the Act of 1867 and came into force on 1 March 2024. It:

• replaces the Registrar of Newspapers with a Press Registrar General;
• allows periodicals to be registered online;
• leaves books and academic journals out of its scope;
• replaces most criminal offences with monetary penalties. Imprisonment remains only for serious defaults, such as continuing to publish without registration even after being directed to stop.

Press Freedom under the Indian Constitution

No separate press clause

The Indian Constitution has no separate Article on freedom of the press. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar explained that the press is merely another way of stating an individual or a citizen. The press has no special rights which a citizen does not have in his individual capacity; an editor or manager who writes in a newspaper is only exercising his own right of expression. So no special mention of press freedom was necessary, and it forms part of the freedom of speech and expression of every citizen.

Point	United States Constitution	Indian Constitution
Is the press named?	Yes, in the First Amendment	No; press freedom is part of Article 19(1)(a)
Restrictions	None listed; courts have developed the limits	Reasonable restrictions on the grounds in Article 19(2)

Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. From these few words, the Supreme Court has built the whole structure of press freedom.

What Freedom of Speech and Expression Includes

1. Freedom to publish and to circulate

2. Freedom from pre-censorship

The Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951

These two judgments troubled the new government, so Parliament passed the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951, which rewrote Article 19(2):

• it added three new grounds: public order, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence;
• it added the word reasonable before restrictions, so that courts can test every restriction.

Later, the Sixteenth Amendment of 1963 added the sovereignty and integrity of India.

3. Right to receive information (the right to know)

The Supreme Court has held that in a democracy people have a right to know about public affairs. This right of the public to know is the deepest reason why a free press matters.

4. Every medium

The freedom covers newspapers, books, cinema, radio, television and the internet.

5. Commercial speech

The freedom includes commercial speech, that is, advertisements (Unit Four).

6. Right of reply

Companies and Article 19

Article 19 protects only citizens, and a company is not a citizen. But shareholders, who are citizens, do not lose their fundamental rights by forming a company, so newspaper companies have been able to defend press freedom through their shareholders, as in the Bennett Coleman case.

Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(2)

Freedom of the press is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on it, but only in the interests of eight grounds.

Ground	Meaning and media illustration
1. Sovereignty and integrity of India	A publication calling for a part of India to break away may be restricted.
2. Security of the State	Grave dangers like war, rebellion or an attempt to overthrow the government; reporting the live movement of troops during a war may be restricted.
3. Friendly relations with foreign States	Added by the First Amendment, 1951.
4. Public order	Public peace and tranquillity; a speech or post likely to cause a riot may be restricted.
5. Decency or morality	The basis of obscenity laws (Unit Three).
6. Contempt of court	Protects the administration of justice (Unit Three).
7. Defamation	Protects reputation (Unit Three).
8. Incitement to an offence	Speech urging people to commit crimes, like burning buses or attacking a community.

Three important points about the grounds

1. The list is exhaustive. Every restriction on the media must fit into one of the eight grounds.
2. The restriction must be imposed by law, that is, by a statute or valid rules made under a statute. An executive instruction, or the wish of a police officer, is not enough.
3. The restriction must be reasonable.

Tests of Reasonableness

The Constitution does not define reasonable, so courts have developed tests.

1. No abstract standard

2. Not excessive

3. Proximate nexus

There must be a close and direct link between the restriction and the ground.

4. Real, not imagined, danger

5. Not vague or overbroad

6. Proportionality

Courts today apply the test of proportionality. The State must show that:

1. the restriction pursues a legitimate aim;
2. it is a suitable way to achieve that aim;
3. there is no less restrictive but equally effective alternative; and
4. the harm to the right is not greater than the benefit gained.

7. Effect, not form

Courts look at the real effect of a law on free speech, not merely at its form or label. This test was born in three famous newspaper cases.

The Newspaper Cases and the Effect Test

Express Newspapers Private Limited v. Union of India

The first great case on laws that regulate the press as an industry.

Sakal Papers Private Limited v. Union of India

The other side of the same principle.

Article 19(6)	Article 19(2)
Allows restrictions on business, so the business side of a newspaper may be regulated	Allows restrictions on speech only on its listed grounds; preventing unfair competition is not one of them

Bennett Coleman and Company v. Union of India

The landmark case on the effect test.

Dissent: Justice K.K. Mathew held the policy a fair way of sharing a scarce resource among big and small papers. It might reduce the quantity of speech, but it did not abridge the freedom of speech.

The three cases as a set

Case	Contribution
Express Newspapers (1958)	Test of direct and inevitable effect; a general labour law upheld
Sakal Papers (1961)	Economic reasons cannot justify curbing speech
Bennett Coleman (1972)	The real effect of a measure on free speech, not its label, decides

Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India

Applying the tests

Dimensions of Media: The Grounds That Most Often Touch the Media

Of the eight grounds on which speech can be restricted, three touch the media most often in daily life:

1. Decency and morality, which gives rise to the law of obscenity.
2. Defamation, which protects reputation.
3. The relationship between the media and the courts, which brings in open justice, media trials and contempt of court.

Media and Criminal Law

Much of Media Law is criminal law applied to the media. Obscenity, defamation, hurting religious feelings, promoting enmity between groups and disclosing the identity of a rape victim are all crimes. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC) dealt with them for more than a century and a half; from 1 July 2024 it has been replaced by the B.N.S., 2023. Most old offences continue in the B.N.S. with new section numbers, and the older cases remain good law on the principles, because the wording of these offences is largely the same.

Other offences that often concern the media

1. Sedition: the old offence under Section 124A of the IPC was used against newspapers from the days of Tilak. The B.N.S. has no offence called sedition; instead, Section 152 of the B.N.S. punishes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
2. Enmity and religious feelings: promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, caste or language is now in Section 196 of the B.N.S.; deliberately outraging religious feelings is now in Section 299.
3. False statements and rumours: Section 353 of the B.N.S. punishes making or circulating statements, false information, rumours or reports, including through electronic means, with intent to cause fear, alarm or public mischief.

Decency and Morality

Both change with time and place: a film scene that shocked audiences in 1960 may seem ordinary today. The law on obscenity is therefore a story of how courts have tried to measure a moving standard.

The Law of Obscenity

Section 292 IPC, now Section 294 B.N.S.

Section 292 of the IPC punished the sale, distribution, public exhibition or circulation of obscene books, pamphlets, drawings, paintings and other objects. A thing is obscene if:

• it is lascivious, that is, full of lust; or
• it appeals to the prurient interest, that is, an unhealthy interest in sex; or
• its effect, taken as a whole, tends to deprave and corrupt the people likely to read, see or hear it.

Today the offence is in Section 294 of the B.N.S., which also expressly covers the display of obscene content in electronic form. The exceptions cover works published for the public good in the interest of science, literature, art or learning; works kept for religious purposes; and sculptures on ancient monuments and temples.

Related provisions

Provision	What it covers
Section 295, B.N.S.	Selling obscene objects to a child
Section 296, B.N.S.	Obscene acts, songs or words in a public place that annoy others
Sections 67 and 67A, Information Technology Act	Publishing or transmitting obscene material and sexually explicit material in electronic form
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986	Depicting women in an indecent or degrading way in advertisements, books and other publications

The central question is when a book, picture, film or post is obscene. The answer has changed greatly over 150 years, beginning in England.

Development of the Obscenity Test: Leading Cases

Regina v. Hicklin (1868)

Three features of the Hicklin test (each later rejected)

1. It measured obscenity by the effect on the most vulnerable, such as children and weak minds, not on an ordinary adult.
2. A few isolated passages were enough, even if the work as a whole was serious.
3. The purpose and literary value of the work did not matter, so even great literature could be banned.

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964)

• Section 292 is a valid reasonable restriction in the interest of decency and morality.
• The bookseller's knowledge of the obscenity is not an ingredient of the offence; lack of knowledge may reduce the punishment but is not a defence.
• The Hicklin test, as followed in India, is the right test and does not violate Article 19.
• Treating sex and nudity in art and literature is not by itself evidence of obscenity: there is no need to make the angels and saints of Michelangelo wear breeches before they can be viewed.
• The work must be seen as a whole, but the obscene passages must also be judged separately.
• Where art and obscenity are mixed, the art must so preponderate as to throw the obscenity into a shadow, or the obscenity must be so trivial that it can be overlooked.

Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra (1969)

• The work must be judged as a whole, and its influence on the social morality of contemporary society cannot be overlooked.
• Where a work claims literary merit, the court may consider the views of leading writers.
• Society has changed, and adults must be allowed to read about love and sex.
• What matters is whether a class of readers, not an isolated case, would be depraved.

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970)

1. Pre-censorship is valid: a motion picture combines sight and sound, has instant appeal and can stir emotions more deeply than any other form of art.
2. Clear standards: censors' standards must be clear and leave a vast area for creative art. They must not fall to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved decides what the morally healthy cannot see or read.
3. Art: the guidelines should also stress the importance of art.

The American Approach: Roth and Miller

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Raj Kapoor v. State (1979) and Raj Kapoor v. Laxman

Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985)

How a judge should approach a work

1. First, place himself in the position of the author: what does the author want to convey, and does the work have literary or artistic value?
2. Then, place himself in the position of readers of every age group into whose hands the book is likely to fall, and ask what influence it may have on them.

Vulgarity	Obscenity
Arouses disgust, revulsion or boredom, but does not deprave or corrupt	Has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences

Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996)

• The naked parade scene was meant not to arouse lust, but to create sympathy for the victim and disgust for the perpetrators.
• The swear words were words heard in every village and town.
• Test for a serious film: first recognise its message; then ask of each scene whether it advances the message. If it does, leave it alone, with only the caution of an Adult certificate.

Director General, Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan (2006)

Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2006)

• The test of obscenity is the view of an ordinary person of common sense and prudence, not of a hypersensitive person.
• Nudity alone does not make material obscene.
• Remedies already exist, such as the Norms of the Press Council and the criminal law, and no need to curtail press freedom had been shown.

Maqbool Fida Husain v. Raj Kumar Pandey (2008)

• The Court noted the long Indian tradition of nudity in art, from the temples of Khajuraho onwards.
• It worried about artists being harassed by complaints filed all over the country, and urged the legislature to look into it.
• The judgment ends: a painter at ninety deserves to be in his home, painting his canvas.

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)

• The complainants were not persons aggrieved: the remarks were not aimed at any individual or identifiable group.
• Expressing a view on social morality is neither obscene nor defamatory.
• Notions of social morality are inherently subjective; criminal law cannot be used to unduly interfere with personal autonomy.
• Disagreement with an opinion should be answered with speech, not with criminal cases.

Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)

• Only material that tends to excite lustful thoughts can be held obscene, judged from the point of view of an average person applying contemporary community standards.
• A picture of a nude or semi-nude woman is not obscene by itself.
• The photograph had to be seen in its context and with its message, a protest against racism; so it was not obscene.

Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra (2015)

For a historically respected personality like Mahatma Gandhi, the test applies with more vigour, in a greater degree and in an accentuated manner. Language that might otherwise pass may become obscene when used this way.

Felix M.A. v. P.V. Gangadharan

Apoorva Arora v. State (2024)

• The High Court asked the wrong question: the question is not whether the language is civil or decent, but whether it is obscene.
• Expletive-filled language may be distasteful, uncivil and improper, but obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts.
• The series, a comedy about college life, had to be seen as a whole, by the standard of an ordinary adult, not of impressionable minds or children.

The Journey of Obscenity Law

Case	Contribution
Regina v. Hicklin	The most vulnerable reader and a few isolated passages decided the fate of a work
Ranjit D. Udeshi	Adopted Hicklin, but looked at the whole work and its art
Kakodkar; K.A. Abbas	Adults must not be reduced to reading what suits children and the depraved
Samaresh Bose	Separated vulgarity from obscenity
Bobby Art; Anand Patwardhan	Asked what message a work carries
Aveek Sarkar	Formally replaced Hicklin with the contemporary community standards test
Tuljapurkar	Added a stricter degree for historically respected personalities
Apoorva Arora	Profanity is not obscenity

Defamation

Reputation is the second great limit on the media. A lifetime spent building a good name can be destroyed overnight by one careless headline. Reputation is part of human dignity, and the Supreme Court has held that the right to reputation is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. In defamation cases two fundamental rights meet: the speaker relies on Article 19(1)(a), the person defamed on Article 21, and the court must balance them.

Civil and criminal defamation

Point	Civil defamation	Criminal defamation
Nature	A tort, that is, a civil wrong	An offence
Source	Not in any statute; judge-made law inherited from England	Defined in Section 499 and punished under Section 500 of the IPC; now Section 356 of the B.N.S.
Remedy or punishment	Damages or an injunction	Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service (a new punishment introduced by the B.N.S.)
Intention	Generally not needed	Guilty mind required

Section 356 of the B.N.S. also punishes printing or selling material known to be defamatory.

Procedure for criminal defamation

• A court can take it up only on a complaint by the person aggrieved.
• The offence is non-cognizable, so the police cannot register an ordinary case for it.
• This rule, earlier in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is now in Section 222 of the B.N.S.S.
• Where the person defamed is a high public functionary, such as a Minister, and the statement concerns his public functions, the Public Prosecutor may file the complaint with the government's sanction.

Libel and slander

Libel	Slander
Defamation in a permanent form: writing, print or pictures	Defamation in a passing form: spoken words or gestures

This is an English distinction. Indian criminal law covers both alike, because the offence can be committed by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs, or by visible representations.

Essential Ingredients of Defamation

There are three ingredients, and a fourth for the crime.

1. The statement must be defamatory

Under Explanation 4 to the criminal provision, an imputation harms reputation if it lowers the person's moral or intellectual character, his character in respect of his caste or calling, or his credit, or makes people believe that his body is in a loathsome or disgraceful state.

A statement innocent on its face may be defamatory through an innuendo, that is, a hidden meaning understood by people who know certain extra facts. Defamation can also be committed by asking a question, by putting it as an alternative, or by irony.

2. The statement must refer to the person

• He need not be named; it is enough if reasonable people who know him would understand that it refers to him.
• If a statement attacks a large class, like all politicians or all lawyers, no single member can usually sue, because no one is singled out.
• A small, identifiable group is different: if a report says the four partners of a particular firm are cheats, each partner can sue.
• The criminal law expressly says that an imputation against a company, an association or a collection of persons can be defamation, but the group must be an identifiable body, so that it can be said with certainty that a particular group, as distinct from the rest of the community, has been defamed.

3. The statement must be published

• Publication means communication to at least one person other than the person defamed. Once printed, broadcast or posted, a statement is published.
• Everyone who takes part in publishing, like the author, editor, printer and publisher, can be liable.
• Repeating a defamatory statement is a fresh publication, so a person who shares or reposts a defamatory post online may also be liable.

4. Guilty mind (for the crime)

The person must intend to harm reputation, or know or have reason to believe that the imputation will harm it. For the civil wrong, intention is generally not needed.

Defences to Defamation

These defences are the tools of every journalist.

1. Truth

Civil law	Criminal law (First Exception)
Proof that the statement is substantially true is a complete defence	Stricter: truth is a defence only if the imputation was made or published for the public good

2. Fair comment (honest opinion)

Fair comment protects opinions, not statements of fact, on matters of public interest. The comment must be based on true facts, be recognisable as opinion, and be honestly held. The criminal law protects good faith opinions on the public conduct of public servants, on the conduct of any person touching a public question, and on the merits of any performance submitted to public judgment, like a book, a film or a speech.

3. Privilege

Some occasions are so important that the law protects speech on them.

Absolute privilege	Qualified privilege
Complete protection, whatever the motive	Protects a statement made in good faith and without malice
Statements made in Parliament (under the Constitution); in civil law, statements of judges, lawyers and witnesses in court proceedings	For the media, chiefly fair and accurate reports of court proceedings; under Article 361A, a substantially true newspaper or broadcast report of proceedings of Parliament or a State Legislature, unless published with malice

4. Other good faith exceptions in criminal law

• Censure by a person in lawful authority, like a teacher over a student.
• An accusation made in good faith to a proper authority, like a complaint to the police.
• Statements made in good faith to protect one's own interests, or to caution another person for the public good.

Responsible Journalism

If a reporter believed a story was true but cannot prove it in court, must he always lose? English law answered this in the Reynolds case, which gave the idea of responsible journalism.

The ten Reynolds factors (not exhaustive)

1. The seriousness of the allegation.
2. The nature of the information, and how far it is a matter of public concern.
3. The source of the information.
4. The steps taken to verify it.
5. The status of the information, for example whether it was already under official investigation.
6. The urgency of the matter.
7. Whether comment was sought from the person concerned.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of his side of the story.
9. The tone of the article.
10. The circumstances of publication, including its timing.

In 2013 the Defamation Act for England and Wales abolished the Reynolds defence as such, replacing it with a statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest, where the defendant reasonably believed that publishing was in the public interest. The Reynolds factors remain the best practical checklist for a careful journalist anywhere.

Constitutionality of Criminal Defamation

Many argued that jailing a person for words is a colonial relic that chills free speech, and that civil remedies are enough.

• Reputation is an inseparable part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
• The word defamation in Article 19(2) includes criminal defamation, not only the civil wrong.
• Free speech does not include a right to damage another's reputation, so the two rights must be balanced. The Court also relied on the value of fraternity in the Preamble.
• The magistrate carries a heavy burden to scrutinise a private complaint with care before summoning anyone, so that the process does not become a tool of harassment.

Criminal defamation thus remains valid law and continues in the B.N.S., though critics say it is often used to harass journalists.

SLAPP Suits

Typically a powerful person or company sues a journalist, activist or small publisher, claims huge damages (sometimes hundreds of crores of rupees) and files in a distant court, to drain the critic's money, time and courage so that others also stop writing.

India has no special anti-SLAPP law yet, but courts refuse interim injunctions against publications on matters of public interest, insist that the plaintiff be clearly identified, and impose costs.

Indian courts thus sometimes grant pre-trial injunctions to protect reputation, and critics argue that this encourages SLAPP suits.

Protection of Critics of Public Officials: The American Rule

Pre-Trial Injunctions Against the Media

• The usual interim injunction test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) must not be applied mechanically in defamation cases against the media.
• An injunction should be granted only in exceptional cases, where the defence is bound to fail at trial.
• A pre-trial injunction often acts as a death sentence for the material.
• The Court expressly recognised SLAPP suits, where powerful entities use prolonged litigation to keep the public from learning about matters of public interest.

Defamatory Humour

Satire, parody, cartoons, stand-up comedy and memes are old and valuable forms of expression. They work through exaggeration and incongruity, that is, a deliberate mismatch between what is said and what is meant. The law generally protects them, because a reasonable audience does not take an obvious joke as a statement of fact.

Defamatory Humour: Bata India v. Prakash Jha Productions

Satire and hyperbole are judged by how an ordinary listener understands them in their full setting, not word by word.

Remedies for Defamation

A person defamed by the media has four kinds of remedy.

1. Damages in a civil suit. Damages compensate for harm to reputation and feelings, and for any proved financial loss. They can be higher where the publication was deliberate or malicious. A civil suit for libel or slander must be filed within one year of the publication, under the Limitation Act.
2. Injunction, a court order stopping publication. A permanent injunction may be granted after the trial. But, as held in the Bloomberg case, an interim injunction before trial is a form of prior restraint and should be granted only in exceptional cases.
3. Criminal complaint under Section 356 of the B.N.S.
4. Remedies outside court:
   • a demand for a correction, an apology or a right of reply;
   • a complaint to the Press Council against a newspaper, or to the self-regulatory bodies for television and digital news;
   • for online content, a request to the platform to remove it under the Information Technology Rules; courts can also order platforms to take down defamatory posts.

Media and the Judiciary

The relationship between the media and the courts is full of tension. The courts need the media, because it tells the public what happens in courtrooms. But they also fear it, because loud coverage can prejudice a trial or shake public faith in judges. The law balances these two sides.

Why the media reports court cases

Courts exercise great public power: a judge can send a person to prison or take away his property, and the public has a right to know how this power is used. Most citizens never enter a courtroom, so journalists act as their eyes and ears. When the public can watch, judges stay careful, witnesses stay truthful, and people trust the result.

The principle of open justice

In India, the principle is written into the procedural laws:

• Section 366 of the B.N.S.S. (which replaced Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure): the place where a criminal court sits shall be deemed to be an open court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as it can conveniently hold them.
• The Code of Civil Procedure has a similar rule for civil courts.

Exceptions to Open Justice

Open justice is not absolute; sometimes a public hearing would itself defeat justice. The main exceptions are:

1. Sexual offences tried in camera. Trials for rape and related sexual offences, and for sexual offences against children, must be held in camera under Section 366 of the B.N.S.S. No one may print or publish anything about such proceedings without the court's permission, although the court may lift the ban while keeping the names and addresses of the parties confidential.
2. Identity of the victim. The identity of a victim of rape or related offences must not be disclosed, except in a few cases the law allows, such as with her own written authorisation. Section 72 of the B.N.S. (earlier Section 228A of the IPC) punishes anyone who prints or publishes her name, or any matter that may reveal her identity. Section 73 punishes publishing the court proceedings in such cases without permission, though judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court may be published.
3. Children. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 forbid the media from revealing the name, address, school, photograph or any other detail that could identify a child in conflict with law, or a child who is a victim or a witness.
4. Family cases and national security. Matrimonial and family cases may be heard in private. Under laws like the Official Secrets Act, the public may be excluded for reasons of national security.
5. Postponement of publication. A court may temporarily postpone publication to protect a fair trial (the Sahara case, below).

Where a trial may be held

Balancing open justice and protection of victims

Media Trials

Four harms

1. Presumption of innocence. Every accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. A media trial reverses this and brands him a criminal; even if the court later acquits him, the public may never accept it.
2. Fair trial. The right to a fair trial is part of Article 21. Witnesses may change their stories after watching the coverage.
3. Pressure on judges. Judges are human; constant coverage may, even without their knowing, create pressure on them.
4. Privacy and dignity. Leaks from the investigation, private messages and medical details may destroy the privacy and dignity of the accused, the victim and their families.

On the other side, in some famous cases persistent media coverage exposed the failures of the system and helped victims get justice in the higher courts. So the goal is not to silence the media, but to keep it within limits.

Legal tools against media trials

1. The law of contempt (below).
2. The Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, which forbids any television programme containing anything amounting to contempt of court, or anything defamatory or deliberately false.
3. The self-regulatory codes of news broadcasters.

In 2006, the Law Commission, in its 200th Report, Trial by Media, recommended that the media be restrained from publishing prejudicial material from the time of arrest, and not only after a charge-sheet is filed. Parliament has not made that change, so the courts have developed the law through cases.

Postponement orders

Conditions for a postponement order:

• The court may order the media to temporarily postpone reporting on a pending case only when there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice.
• The order must be necessary and proportionate, for a limited period, and must not alter the content of the report.
• It is allowed only when other measures, like changing the venue or postponing the trial, cannot prevent the risk.
• It is a neutralising device, not a punishment, and is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
• Any accused or aggrieved person who genuinely fears that a publication will harm his right to a fair trial can approach the High Court or the Supreme Court for such an order.

Media trial during an investigation

The Court directed the press and media, during an investigation, not to:

• attack the character of the accused or the victim;
• interview victims or witnesses on screen, or analyse the versions of witnesses;
• present a confession made to the police as if it were admissible evidence;
• print photographs that help to identify an accused;
• criticise the investigators on half-baked information;
• pronounce on guilt or innocence, reconstruct the crime scene, or predict the next steps of the investigation;
• leak confidential material;
• in a case of suicide, portray the deceased as weak or intrude on his privacy.

Anchors must control guests who cross the line, and a disclaimer at the end of a programme does not save a channel from liability.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is the strongest legal weapon against a media that crosses the line. Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution declare the Supreme Court and the High Courts to be courts of record, with the power to punish for contempt of themselves. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines two kinds of contempt.

Civil contempt	Criminal contempt
Wilful disobedience of an order of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.	Publication of any matter, or doing of any act, that scandalises a court, prejudices a judicial proceeding, or obstructs the administration of justice. This is the kind that concerns the media.

Three forms of criminal contempt

Criminal contempt is the publication of any matter, or the doing of any act, which:

1. scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers, or tends to lower, the authority of any court; or
2. prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
3. interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

Punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to 2,000 rupees, or both. The court may discharge the contemnor (the person guilty of contempt) if he makes a genuine apology.

Defences in contempt

• Section 3, innocent publication: a person who did not know, and had no reasonable grounds to believe, that a case was pending is not guilty. A criminal proceeding becomes pending when a charge-sheet is filed, or when the court issues a summons or a warrant.
• Section 4: a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding is not contempt.
• Section 5: fair criticism of the merits of a case that has been heard and finally decided is not contempt.
• Section 6: a complaint made in good faith about a judge of a subordinate court, to the High Court or to another subordinate court, is not contempt.
• Section 7: a fair and accurate report of proceedings held in chambers or in camera is not contempt, except in certain cases, for example where the court has expressly prohibited publication, or sat in private for reasons of public order or the security of the State.
• Section 13: no one shall be punished for contempt unless it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. Since an amendment in 2006, it also allows truth as a defence, if the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request to rely on it is genuine.

Where fair criticism ends

Scandalising the Court: The Test of Erosion of Public Confidence

Why it is punished: not to protect the personal dignity of judges; a judge who is personally insulted can sue for defamation like anyone else. The real reason is that courts have no army and no purse. Their orders are obeyed because people trust them, and if that trust is destroyed by false and reckless attacks, the rule of law itself suffers.

The test: the cases apply the test of erosion of public confidence. The question is not whether the words hurt a judge's feelings, but whether they are likely to shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

Allowed	May be punished
Fair, reasoned and even strong criticism of judgments, or of the judicial system, made in good faith to improve it.	Baseless allegations of corruption or bias, which aim at or result in destroying public trust in the courts.

Cases applying the test

A contested area

Critics argue that scandalising the court is a vague offence that chills legitimate criticism. England and Wales abolished this form of contempt in 2013.

Unit 4: Advertisements, Film and Broadcast

Beyond the limits that apply to all media, particular media have special rules. This unit covers cinema, broadcasting and OTT platforms (internet streaming services), and advertisements.

Cinema and Freedom of Expression

History

• The first film show in India was held in Bombay in July 1896.
• The first full-length Indian feature film, Raja Harishchandra by Dadasaheb Phalke, was released in 1913.
• Seeing the power of films over the masses, the British introduced censorship through the Cinematograph Act, 1918, and set up boards of censors in the major cities.
• After independence, Parliament passed the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which still governs film certification.

Films as speech

A film is a form of speech protected by Article 19(1)(a).

In later cases, the Supreme Court has said that the effect of a film must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous people, not of weak and oversensitive minds who see danger in every hostile point of view.

From censorship to certification

The Central Board of Film Certification

• Set up under Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act.
• Consists of a Chairperson and not less than 12 and not more than 25 other members, all appointed by the Central Government.
• Headquarters in Mumbai; regional offices in nine cities, such as Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Cuttack.
• In each regional centre, the government appoints advisory panels of people from different walks of life, qualified to judge the effect of films on the public.
• Under the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024, at least one-third of the members of the Board and of the advisory panels should be women, and preferably half.

Appeals and revision

• Earlier, a person aggrieved by the Board could appeal to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, created after the K.A. Abbas case so that appeals would go to an independent body and not to a government officer.
• In 2021, the Tribunals Reforms law abolished the tribunal; appeals now go directly to the High Court.
• In 2023, the Central Government's power to revise the Board's decisions was removed from the Act, following the K.M. Shankarappa case.

The Process of Film Certification

Kinds of certificate

Certificate	Meaning
U	Unrestricted public exhibition.
UA	Unrestricted exhibition, but since the 2023 amendment with an age marker (UA 7+, UA 13+ or UA 16+), cautioning parents to decide whether a child below that age should watch.
A	Restricted to adults.
S	Restricted to a specialised audience, like doctors.

The Board may also require cuts or modifications, or refuse a certificate altogether.

Other 2023 changes

• A certificate is now valid forever, instead of for ten years.
• A film certified Adult or S needs a separate certificate before it is shown on television or other media.
• Piracy, such as secretly recording a film in a theatre or exhibiting a pirated copy, is punishable with imprisonment of three months to three years, and a fine of 3 lakh rupees up to five per cent of the audited gross production cost of the film.

Guiding Principles of Certification

Section 5B(1)

A film shall not be certified if, in the Board's opinion, it or any part of it offends the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or decency or morality; or involves defamation or contempt of court; or is likely to incite the commission of an offence.

Guidelines under Section 5B(2)

The guidelines issued by the government begin with five objectives:

1. the medium of film should remain responsible and sensitive to the values of society;
2. artistic expression and creative freedom should not be unduly curbed;
3. certification should be responsive to social change;
4. films should provide clean and healthy entertainment;
5. as far as possible, films should be of aesthetic value and a good cinematic standard.

The Board must ensure, for example, that:

• anti-social activities like violence are not glorified;
• pointless scenes of violence and cruelty are not shown;
• scenes glamorising drugs, drinking or smoking are avoided;
• vulgarity, obscenity and double meaning words catering to baser instincts are not allowed;
• women are not degraded, and scenes of sexual violence, if germane to the theme, are kept to the minimum;
• words or visuals contemptuous of any racial, religious or other group are not presented.

Heckler's Veto

A heckler is a person who interrupts a speaker by shouting, booing or threatening.

In films, it usually works like this: the CBFC certifies a film; some group claims that it hurts its sentiments and threatens protests; a State government bans the film, or the police quietly tell theatres not to screen it. The courts have repeatedly struck down such actions.

Leading cases

Broadcasting Law and Its History

History

Year	Event
1923	Radio broadcasting begins with amateur radio clubs, such as the Radio Club of Bombay.
1927	A private Indian Broadcasting Company starts stations in Bombay and Calcutta.
1930	The company fails; the government takes over broadcasting as the Indian State Broadcasting Service.
1936	Renamed All India Radio (also called Akashvani from 1957).
1959	Television begins in Delhi on 15 September as an experiment.
1965	Regular daily television service begins.
1976	Television separated from radio as Doordarshan.
1982	National programmes and colour television arrive, around the Asian Games in Delhi.

For more than forty years after independence, broadcasting was a government monopoly, and critics said it served the party in power. Committees recommended autonomy, and Parliament passed the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, which came into force only in 1997. It created Prasar Bharati, an autonomous public broadcaster that runs All India Radio and Doordarshan.

The monopoly was broken in two ways:

1. from 1991, foreign satellite channels began to beam programmes into India, and cable operators spread them across the cities;
2. in the Cricket Association of Bengal case, the Supreme Court held that the airwaves are public property and that a government monopoly over broadcasting is inconsistent with free speech.

Regulation of private television

Private television is regulated mainly by the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995:

• Sections 5 and 6: no one may transmit a programme or advertisement through a cable service unless it conforms to the Programme Code and the Advertising Code in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
• Section 20: the Central Government can prohibit a channel or programme in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, and can prohibit a programme that violates these codes.
• Channels also need permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under its uplinking and downlinking guidelines.

The Programme Code (Rule 6) says that a programme must not, for example, offend good taste or decency; attack religions or communities; contain anything obscene, defamatory, deliberately false, or suggestive innuendos and half-truths; encourage violence; amount to contempt of court; or cast aspersions on the integrity of the President and the judiciary. Since 2015, it also bars live coverage of anti-terrorist operations, allowing only periodic briefings by an officer designated by the government until the operation ends.

Proposed reform: a draft Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill was released in 2023 to replace the Cable Television Act and bring online content under one law. After strong criticism, a revised draft was withdrawn in 2024, and no new law has been passed.

Complaint Procedures against the Media

When the media crosses the line, a reader or viewer can complain. There are separate complaint systems for print, television and digital media.

Print: the Press Council of India

Complaints against newspapers go to the Press Council of India under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978.

• Composition: a Chairperson, who by convention is a retired judge of the Supreme Court, and 28 members drawn from working journalists, editors, owners, Parliament and other fields. Its present Chairperson is Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
• Prior step: before complaining, the complainant must first draw the attention of the editor to the matter.
• Time limit: the complaint must be filed within two months of publication for dailies, weeklies and news agencies, and within four months in other cases.
• Powers: after hearing the newspaper, the Council may warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the editor or the journalist, or disapprove of their conduct. It may direct the newspaper to publish the particulars of its decision.
• Limits: the Council cannot impose fines or award damages, and it has no power over television or digital media.

Television: the three-tier system

The Cable Television Networks Amendment Rules of 2021 created a three-tier system for complaints against television content.

1. First level: the broadcaster itself deals with the complaint through a grievance officer, who must acknowledge it within 24 hours and decide it within 15 days.
2. Second level: the complainant can approach a self-regulating body of broadcasters, registered with the Central Government.
3. Third level: an appeal lies to the oversight mechanism of the Central Government, where an Inter-Departmental Committee hears the matter and makes recommendations to the Ministry.

The News Broadcasters and Digital Association

The most important self-regulating body for news channels is run by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (earlier called the News Broadcasters Association), formed by private news broadcasters.

• In 2008 it adopted a Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and set up an independent authority to enforce it.
• This authority is now called the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA). It also covers the digital news platforms of its members.
• It is headed by an eminent jurist, and includes independent members and editors.

The NBDSA Code

The Code asks channels to:

• be impartial and objective;
• ensure that allegations are not presented as facts, and charges are not conveyed as proof of guilt;
• respect privacy; and
• avoid sensationalism.

Procedure before the NBDSA

1. A viewer must first complain to the broadcaster within 15 days of the broadcast, and the broadcaster must reply within 15 days.
2. If not satisfied, the viewer may approach the NBDSA within 15 days of the reply.
3. The Authority hears both sides and decides, ordinarily within three months.

Powers of the NBDSA

• Warn, admonish or censure the broadcaster.
• Direct it to telecast an apology.
• Order the content to be removed.
• Impose fines. The old maximum fine of one lakh rupees was widely criticised as too low. Under the amended regulations, fines rise in steps for repeated violations, up to twenty five lakh rupees.
• Suspend a programme for up to a week, or direct that an anchor be taken off air for up to a month.

Entertainment channels

For entertainment channels, a similar body, the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council, is run by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation.

OTT Platforms

OTT stands for "over the top". It means content delivered directly to viewers over the internet, going over the top of cable and satellite networks. Streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video are OTT platforms, and so are many Indian services.

The legal gap

A film shown in a theatre needs a certificate from the CBFC, and a television channel must follow the Programme Code. But a web series streamed to a phone fell under neither.

The Code of Ethics for OTT

The government responded in February 2021 with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules. Part III of these Rules applies to publishers of online curated content (OTT platforms) and to publishers of digital news, and it is administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The Code of Ethics for OTT platforms has five main parts:

1. Prohibited content: they must not transmit content prohibited by law, and must use caution about content affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and the multi-racial and multi-religious context of India.
2. Age classification: content must be classified as U, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ or A (Adult).
3. Display of rating: the rating and content descriptors, such as violence, nudity or strong language, must be displayed before each programme.
4. Access controls: parental locks for content rated UA 13+ or higher, and a reliable age verification system for Adult content.
5. Accessibility: they should improve accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Three-tier grievance system for OTT

1. First level: the platform's grievance officer must decide a complaint within 15 days.
2. Second level: a self-regulating body, headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, or an eminent person, with not more than six members, and registered with the Ministry, hears unresolved complaints.
3. Third level: an Inter-Departmental Committee of the government can recommend action, such as a warning, an apology, reclassification, or modification of content.

In an emergency, the government can also order content to be blocked.

Challenges to the Rules

• In August 2021, the Bombay High Court, on petitions by a digital news portal and a journalist, stayed the rules that made the Code of Ethics binding and set up the three-tier system to enforce it. It found them prima facie beyond the Information Technology Act and a threat to free speech.
• In 2024, the Supreme Court transferred all challenges to these Rules to the Delhi High Court, where they remain pending, and the interim protection continues.
• In practice, OTT platforms follow the age classification and the self-regulatory system.

Recent developments

• In 2025, after controversy over vulgar remarks on an online comedy show, the Ministry issued an advisory reminding platforms to follow the Code of Ethics.
• Later that year, the government blocked access to 25 apps that streamed obscene content.

Advertisements and Commercial Speech

Advertising is also the lifeblood of the media, because most newspapers and channels earn much of their income from it. Advertising law therefore raises two questions:

1. Is advertising protected as free speech?
2. How far can the law control it to protect consumers?

Is advertising free speech?

At first, the Supreme Court said no.

Government advertising

Statutory Regulation of Advertising

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019

This is the most important law controlling advertisements.

The Act created the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA). Its powers under Section 21:

• Order a false or misleading advertisement to be withdrawn or modified.
• Impose a penalty of up to ten lakh rupees on the manufacturer or the endorser, and up to fifty lakh rupees for every later contravention.
• Bar an endorser from endorsing any product for up to one year, and up to three years for a later contravention.
• But an endorser is not liable if he exercised due diligence to verify the claims.

Under Section 89, a manufacturer or service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement can also be imprisoned for up to two years, and for up to five years for a later offence.

CCPA Guidelines for the Prevention of Misleading Advertisements (June 2022)

• Advertisements must be truthful and honest, and must not exaggerate.
• Surrogate advertising is prohibited.
• Bait advertisements, free claims, and advertisements aimed at children are regulated.
• Disclaimers must not hide material information or try to correct a misleading claim.
• An endorsement must reflect the genuine opinion of the endorser, based on adequate information about or experience of the product.

Product-specific laws

• Drugs and Magic Remedies Act: bans advertisements of medicines for listed diseases and of magic remedies.
• Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003: bans direct and indirect advertisements of tobacco.
• Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025: bans online money games and their advertisements.
• Indecent Representation of Women Act: forbids advertisements that depict women indecently.
• Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules: forbids television advertisements that violate the code of the Advertising Standards Council of India.

Advertising Techniques

The common techniques of advertising, and where the law draws the line:

Generally permissible techniques (with limits)

• Puffery: exaggerated praise that no reasonable person takes literally, like "the tastiest coffee in the world". It is generally allowed. But a specific and measurable claim, like "twice the protein", must be true.
• Comparative advertising: compares a product with a rival's. It is lawful if it is honest, but not if it denigrates the rival.
• Endorsements and testimonials: use celebrities, experts or ordinary users to vouch for a product. The endorser must now take care.
• Emotional appeals: use fear, love, guilt or national pride. A fear appeal, such as suggesting that a child will fall behind without a health drink, can become unfair.

Problematic techniques

• Bait advertising: offers a product at a very low price to attract customers, when the product is not really available.
• Surrogate advertising: promotes a banned product, like liquor, by advertising something else with the same brand name, like soda or music.
• Subliminal advertising: hides messages that the viewer does not consciously notice.
• Native advertising and advertorials: advertisements dressed up as news or articles, which deceive readers unless clearly labelled.
• Product placement: shows a brand inside a film or web series.
• Influencer marketing: uses social media personalities, who must now clearly disclose paid promotions.
• Dark patterns: in digital commerce, the CCPA has banned 13 dark patterns, that is, deceptive design tricks, such as false urgency (a claim that only two items are left) or hidden charges added at the last step.

Kinds of Advertisements

Basis of classification	Kinds
By purpose	Commercial or product advertisements; institutional advertisements that build a company's image; public service advertisements on issues like health or road safety; political advertisements; government advertisements
By medium	Print, television, radio, outdoor and digital advertisements
By form	Display advertisements (with pictures and design); classified advertisements (small text notices for jobs, property or marriage)
Special kinds with special rules	Comparative, surrogate and children's advertisements

Political advertisements on television need prior certification from committees of the Election Commission.

Comparative Advertising and Disparagement

The basic principles were set out by the Calcutta High Court in the Reckitt and Colman case, in the late 1990s:

1. A trader may declare that his goods are the best in the world, even if this is not true.
2. He may say that his goods are better than his competitor's, and compare their advantages.
3. But he cannot say that his competitor's goods are bad, because that is disparagement, a kind of defamation of goods, which the court can stop by injunction.

The Delhi High Court later added that a court must look at the intent of the advertisement, its manner, its storyline and the message it conveys. The Trade Marks Act also allows a rival's mark to be used in comparison only if the use is honest.

Legal Issues in Advertising

The main legal issues that advertising raises today:

1. Misleading claims, especially health claims, like cures for diseases, fairness creams and quick weight loss.
2. Surrogate advertising of liquor and tobacco.
3. Advertising to children, who cannot easily tell fact from promotion.
4. Harmful stereotypes, such as advertisements that portray women as objects, or that suggest that fair skin brings success.
5. Liability of celebrities and influencers for what they endorse.
6. Disguised advertising, from paid news to unlabelled influencer posts.
7. Misuse of government advertising and political advertising during elections.

The Advertising Standards Council of India

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) is the main self-regulatory body for advertising. It was set up in 1985 by advertisers, advertising agencies and the media. It is a non-profit company, not a government body.

Code for Self-Regulation of Advertising Content in India: four principles

1. Advertisements must be honest and truthful, and must not mislead.
2. They must not be offensive to generally accepted standards of public decency.
3. They must not promote products or situations that are harmful to society or to individuals, particularly children.
4. They must be fair in competition, and must not unfairly attack competitors.

How ASCI works

• Any consumer, competitor or organisation can file a complaint, and ASCI also monitors advertisements on its own.
• The complaint is examined by its Consumer Complaints Council, which includes independent members from civil society as well as experts from the industry.
• The advertiser is given a chance to respond.
• If the advertisement violates the Code, the advertiser is asked to modify or withdraw it. In practice, most advertisers comply.

ASCI has also issued special guidelines for new problems. Since June 2021, its guidelines for influencer advertising require influencers to label promotional posts clearly, with words such as Ad, Advertisement, Sponsored or Collaboration.

Unit Five: Media Ethics and Contemporary Issues

Having studied what the law allows and forbids, this unit asks a different question: even when something is legal, is it right?

Law and ethics

Law	Ethics
Tells us the minimum we must do	Tells us what a good professional should do
Enforced by courts and punishment	Enforced mainly by conscience, peers, codes of conduct and the trust of the audience

Why ethics matter so much in media

• Many harms fall outside the law. A story may be true and not defamatory, and yet be cruel, one-sided or careless.
• The media asks for trust. Once people stop trusting the news, a free press loses its value to democracy.

Sources of ethical standards

• Newspapers: the most important source is the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India, whose latest full edition was issued in 2022, with some norms added later. They cover accuracy and fairness, verification before publication, corrections, the right of reply, privacy, the identity of victims, paid news, trial by media, sting operations and the reporting of suicide.
• News channels: the Code of the NBDSA.
• OTT platforms: the Code of Ethics under the Information Technology Rules.
• Advertisers: the ASCI Code.
• Internationally: a simple and popular formula comes from the Society of Professional Journalists in the United States, with four principles: seek truth and report it; minimise harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent.

Accuracy and Fairness

Accuracy

The first duty of a journalist is accuracy:

• Check facts before publishing, especially when a story can harm someone.
• Use more than one source.
• Separate facts from opinions, and news from advertisements.
• When a mistake happens, correct it promptly and with due prominence.

The race to break news first is the biggest enemy of accuracy. A wrong name flashed as the accused in a murder case can ruin an innocent life in minutes.

Fairness

Fairness means hearing the other side before publishing a serious allegation, giving the person a real chance to respond, and reporting that response. It also means giving a right of reply after publication.

Privacy and Sensationalism

Privacy

Privacy is now a fundamental right, after the decision of a bench of nine judges in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017.

Special care is needed for victims of sexual offences, children, persons with mental illness, and grieving families.

Sensationalism

Sensationalism means presenting news in a shocking or exaggerated way to grab attention.

• Signs: loud music, dramatic graphics, screaming anchors, and speculation presented as fact.
• Cause: the pressure of ratings and clicks.
• Effects: it turns tragedies into entertainment and debates into shouting matches, and pushes serious issues out of the news.

Responsible reporting in a crisis

During the terror attack on Mumbai in November 2008, television channels broadcast the movements of security forces live, which put the operation at risk. So since 2015, the Programme Code bars live coverage of anti-terrorist operations, allowing only periodic official briefings until the operation ends.

The same care is needed while reporting communal riots. The Press Council's norms ask newspapers to avoid inflammatory reporting and unverified rumours during communal disturbances.

Contemporary Issues

1. Misinformation

False information spreads faster than the truth on social media. Some of it is honest error, and some is deliberate disinformation meant to deceive. For journalists, the duty is to verify before sharing, to avoid amplifying rumours, and to fact-check openly. But the law must be careful here.

2. Artificial intelligence and deepfakes

Anyone can now create a fake video in which a real person says things he never said. This is called a deepfake. It can be used to defame a person, to create sexual images of a woman without her consent, or to mislead voters.

• The Information Technology Rules were amended again in February 2026. Platforms must now ensure that synthetically generated content, that is, content created or altered by artificial intelligence to look real, carries a clear label.
• Platforms must remove unlawful content within three hours of a court order or a government notice.
• The older laws also apply. A deepfake that harms a person's reputation can be defamation, and a sexually explicit deepfake can be punished under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.
• Ethically, a newsroom that uses artificial intelligence should label it clearly, should never use it to invent quotes or images of real events, and should keep a human responsible for every story.

3. Digital surveillance

Journalists depend on confidential sources. If phones can be secretly hacked, sources will stop talking. In 2021, reports alleged that the phones of many journalists, activists and politicians had been targeted with Pegasus, a powerful spyware that its maker says it sells only to governments.

The new privacy law: the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 regulates the processing of personal data. Its Rules were notified in November 2025, with most duties applying after eighteen months. Unlike earlier drafts, the Act contains no special exemption for journalism. Critics therefore fear that reporting which uses personal data may need consent, and that its amendment to the Right to Information Act will make it harder for journalists to get information about public officials.

4. Influence of social media

• Algorithms show people more of what they already believe, creating echo chambers.
• Influencers now act as news sources without any editorial checks.
• Paid campaigns, bots and trolls can make a fringe view look popular.
• The old problem of paid news, where money is taken to publish favourable stories disguised as news, has found new forms online.

5. Conflict of interest

When a media house is owned by a business group, or depends on government advertising, its reporting on that group or that government may be softened. Ethics demands disclosure of such interests, and a wall between the business side and the newsroom.

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas

Sometimes two duties clash; for example, the duty to tell the truth may clash with the duty to respect privacy. Philosophers offer two main approaches.

The teleological approach

The word comes from the Greek word telos, meaning end or goal. This approach judges an action by its consequences. The right action is the one that produces the best overall result, the greatest good for the greatest number. This is the idea of utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. A journalist following this approach asks: if I publish this, who will benefit, who will be harmed, and does the good outweigh the harm?

The deontological approach

The word comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. This approach says that some actions are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant gave two famous tests:

1. Act only on a rule that you would be willing to see everyone follow.
2. Always treat human beings as ends in themselves, never merely as means to your goal.

A journalist following this approach asks: what is my duty here? Would I accept this conduct if everyone did it? Am I using this person merely as a tool for my story?

Point	Teleological approach	Deontological approach
Origin of word	Greek telos (end or goal)	Greek deon (duty)
Test	Judges an action by its consequences	Some actions are right or wrong in themselves, whatever the consequences
Thinkers	Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism)	Immanuel Kant
Question asked	What will happen?	What is my duty?

Applying both approaches

Indian courts have accepted a middle path.

Quick revision

• Media law runs from the struggle of the early printing press all the way to deepfakes and the ethics of the digital newsroom.
• In every problem, first identify the right, then test the restriction against the eight grounds and the tests of reasonableness.
• Always name the provision, and support it with the leading case.
• Whenever two concepts look similar, like obscenity and vulgarity, or censorship and certification, write their differences clearly, with an example.