Self-regulation is the only way to avoid government interference in regulating news media, two industry bodies representing news channels, magazines and newspapers told the parliamentary standing committee on communication and information technology on Thursday.
The Editors Guild of India (EGI) and the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), along with senior officials from the ministry of information and broadcasting, deposed before the committee led by BJP Lok Sabha MP Nishikant Dubey. The discussion centered on weaponisation of laws to curb press freedom, functioning of the government’s fact-check unit, and issues with communal and fake news on news channels.
EGI, NBDA and the ministry have been given 10 days to submit written responses to the Lok Sabha secretariat addressing questions raised by committee members.
EGI said various laws, including the Information Technology Act, were being weaponised to curb press freedom. The guild highlighted section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that carries up to three years in jail and/or a fine for publishing false information with intent to create enmity. The EGI said the definitions under the law are vague and prone to abuse.
The guild also noted that in September 2024, the Bombay high court had struck down the central government’s attempt to establish a state-run fact-check unit through a 2023 amendment to the IT Rules as unconstitutional.
Ministry officials, including joint secretary C Senthil Rajan, said since the amendment was struck down, the Press Information Bureau’s fact-check unit could only label misleading content related to the central government but couldn’t issue takedown notices.
To be sure, the amendment did not clarify whether the government’s FCU would have had takedown powers, a point of confusion that was argued at length during the court proceedings in Bombay HC.
In the meeting, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale cited two instances where false information was spread by government officials themselves but was not fact checked by the PIB FCU. First, when Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson for the ministry of external affairs, in a public statement said that the blocking of the social media handles of Australia Today in Canada after it carried an interview with foreign minister S Jaishankar “highlights the hypocrisy of Canada towards freedom of speech” even though the handles had been blocked by Meta because of the platform’s May 2023 decision to end the availability of news content on its platforms in Canada. Second, when Jaishankar and defence minister Rajnath Singh claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had got the Ukraine-Russia war paused.
Gokhale asked whether the government of India and its ministers and officials were exempted from being fact checked by the PIB FCU even as the unit fact checks individuals on social media and news organisations. He also asked for details about the FCU’s methodology and for information about how many misleading or false claims by the central government itself had been fact checked by the PIB FCU.
MIB officials said that the PIB FCU did not take suo motu cognisance of content to fact check through its social media handles; it relied on complaints being made to it and no complaints had been made about false claims by government officials. The parliamentarians asked for a written submission to that effect.
Dubey, in the meeting, said that PIB was set up to spread information about the central government and was responsible for and answerable to the government, not to the people.
Gokhale asked MIB officials about the watermarked version of the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill that was circulated among select stakeholders in July which was ultimately withdrawn.
Regulating news channels
NBDA chairperson Rajat Sharma told the committee that the news broadcasters who are members of the NBDA do not interfere with the functioning of its adjudicatory arm, the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), which is chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri.
Sharma told the committee that a number of media houses become members of the NBDA but when the NBDSA issues orders against them, they leave the self-regulatory body so that they do not have to comply. He said that the NBDA cannot force people to join as it is a voluntary exercise.
Anuradha Prasad, honorary treasurer of the NBDA (chairperson and MD of News24), suggested to the committee that the government should make registering with a self-regulatory body an obligatory licence condition for news channels, a suggestion that Dubey echoed to MIB officials.
Gokhale said that penalty amounts imposed by NBDSA are restricted to a maximum of ₹5 lacs, a paltry amount for shows such as Sharma’s whose advertising revenue for an hour-long show runs in high double digit lacs. The TMC MP asked how such small amounts could act as effective deterrent. Sharma informed the committee that the NBDA was considering revising the penalty to ₹25 lacs.
Gokhale also said that there was no separate mechanism for channels that repeatedly flouted standards and instead, each offence was treated as the first offence. Sharma said that that would be placed before the board.
Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi also alleged that NBDA/NBDSA was not acting against repeat offenders such as News18 that routinely broadcast “communally-charged, misleading and false news”. She cited independent fact checker AltNews’s data as per which despite there being more than 300 instances of News18 broadcasting communal programming, NBDA/NBDSA took action in only five instances.
Lok Sabha MPs Devesh Shakya (Samajwadi Party, Uttar Pradesh) and Rajesh Verma (Lok Jan Shakti Party (Ram Vilas), Bihar) raised the issue of local cable news channel operators and YouTubers who ran “extortion rackets” where they blackmail politicians into paying them money for not running false and damaging stories about them.
MIB officials said local cable operators were regulated by the district collector or magistrate. Dubey said that it was unfair of the MIB to hold the district collector or the magistrate responsible for this when they were already burdened by other duties. He told the MIB that the ministry couldn’t absolve itself of responsibility.
Gokhale also raised the question of how social media posts from personal accounts and public appearances from channel editors and owners were regulated by the NBDA.
AI generated false news
Sharma said that he himself had been a target of deepfakes where deepfakes of him selling some medicines for diabetes were being shared on social media.
Chaturvedi raised the issue of news channels broadcasting the AI generated voice notes posted by the BJP on the eve of the Maharashtra assembly elections on Tuesday. She said that all channels continued to run the synthetic voice notes as fact without comparing them to their existing archives with the voices of the public personalities.
It is only on Wednesday, after independent fact checker Boom said that three of the four voice notes were definitely fake, that some news channels started fact checking the BJP’s tweets, she said in the meeting. She asked the NBDA if it circulated any advisories to its members, telling them to fact check if one of the members had done so, and how the agenda for prime time debate shows was set.
In response, Prasad, in the meeting, said that political parties also had to take responsibility for the amount of fake news being put out as they had entire ecosystems (referring to ‘troll armies’ and ‘IT cells’) spreading misinformation.
Issues with the Press Council of India
The EGI also raised concerns about the Press Council of India, especially about the selection of its chairperson. The EGI said that the PCI had become partisan and instead of being accountable to the Parliament, as required under the Press Council of Act, 1978, it had been cornered by the executive.
Dubey said that the rules around the selection of the PCI chairperson had remained unchanged since 1978 to which EGI said that it was not just the current government but each successive government that had made the PCI toothless. The guild offered to submit a written submission about the problems with the selection of the PCI chair, an offer that was accepted by Dubey.
Under the PCI Act, the PCI chair is nominated by a committee made up of the Rajya Sabha chairperson, the Lok Sabha Speaker and a person elected by a Council that is nominated by the central government.