New Delhi — The Editors Guild of India (EGI), a prominent body representing senior editors, has raised urgent concerns about recent legislative measures impacting media regulation. In a comprehensive letter addressed to Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders, the Guild has outlined its apprehensions regarding laws and amendments that it believes threaten press freedom across print, broadcast, and digital media.
Established in 1978, the Editors Guild of India has long been a guardian of press freedom. However, recent legislative developments have prompted the Guild to call for immediate parliamentary debate and increased stakeholder engagement to address what it views as potential threats to journalistic independence.
The EGI’s letter highlights several recent legislative measures and amendments that have sparked concern among media professionals. The following is a detailed breakdown of the issues raised:
Lack of Exemptions for Journalism: The Act, intended to regulate the processing of personal data, lacks specific exemptions for journalistic activities. This omission could severely impact key journalistic functions, such as investigation and reporting, by complicating data collection and usage.
Consent Requirements: The law mandates consent for data processing, a requirement that poses significant challenges for investigative journalism. In many cases, obtaining consent from sources, especially in sensitive investigations, is impractical and could impede the reporting process.
Onerous Obligations: Journalists may face difficulties in adhering to obligations related to purpose specification, consent withdrawal, and data erasure, which are often impractical for ongoing journalistic activities.
Government Powers: The Act grants extensive powers to the government to exempt its agencies from the Act’s provisions, potentially undermining source confidentiality and press freedom.
Impact on RTI: The Act could diminish the effectiveness of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by expanding grounds for rejecting RTI applications, affecting transparency and access to information.
Surveillance Concerns: The legislation lacks provisions to prevent surveillance of citizens, including journalists, raising concerns about privacy and potential misuse of surveillance powers.
Censorship Powers: The Act allows the government to censor content on vague grounds related to "the interest of the general public," which could lead to arbitrary content restrictions.
Overbearing Regulatory Structure: The Bill proposes the formation of content evaluation committees and a Broadcast Advisory Council led by a bureaucrat. This structure raises fears of government control over broadcasting content and potential censorship.
Vague Grounds for Content Restriction: The Bill provides the government with broad authority to regulate or prohibit broadcasts on ambiguous grounds, which could lead to arbitrary content restrictions and limitations on editorial freedom.
Excessive Rule-Making Powers: Provisions within the Bill allow for extensive delegation of rule-making, contributing to regulatory uncertainty and potential overreach.
Intrusive Powers: The Bill grants powers for inspection, interception, monitoring, and seizure of broadcasting equipment, raising concerns about privacy and potential abuse of authority.
Censorship Concerns: The Bill includes provisions for content deletion or modification and even the suspension of channels, which could lead to undue censorship.
Burdensome Compliance: Broad requirements for content classification and access control impose significant compliance burdens on broadcasters.
Punitive Measures: The Bill includes heavy monetary penalties for non-compliance, adding financial pressure on media outlets.
Expanded Regulatory Powers: The Act allows the delegation of the Press Registrar's powers to other agencies, including law enforcement, raising concerns about the potential misuse of these powers against critics and dissenters.
Restrictions on Publishing: The Act includes provisions to deny or cancel registration for periodicals involved in "unlawful activity" or acts against state security. Given the history of misuse of such laws against journalists, there are fears that these provisions could be used to target critical voices.
Intrusive Authority: The Act grants the Press Registrar powers to enter press premises, inspect records, and question staff, which could threaten press independence and operational autonomy.
Ambiguous Rule-Making: The central government's broad authority to frame rules for news publishing under this Act raises concerns about arbitrary and restrictive regulations.
Initial IT Rules 2021: These rules mandated a three-tier grievance redressal system for digital news media outlets, with the third tier involving an Inter-Ministerial Group headed by a bureaucrat with powers to delete, modify, and block content. The Guild had previously expressed concerns that this structure could lead to censorship.
2023 Amendments: The amendments introduced a "fact-checking unit" with sweeping powers to determine and instruct the removal of content deemed "fake or misleading" concerning the Central Government. This amendment lacked oversight, judicial review, or adherence to Supreme Court guidelines, effectively leading to potential censorship. The Guild has challenged these amendments in the Bombay High Court, with the fact-checking unit currently stayed by the Supreme Court.
The Editors Guild of India has urged opposition leaders to advocate for renewed parliamentary debate and stakeholder consultations on these legislative measures.
The Guild emphasizes that a free and independent press is essential to the health of democracy and that these measures must be revisited to ensure they do not infringe upon press freedom and the right to information.
The Guild remains open to discussing these issues further and has offered to meet with a delegation to explore these concerns in greater detail.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.