Use of Draconian laws & Law Enforcement agencies

Use of Draconian laws & Law Enforcement agencies

Why in the News?

Recently, a media outlet called NewsClick has been booked under UAPA, the anti-terror law for allegations of receiving funds from organisation which are is an arm of the Chinese propaganda machinery. 

Considerations for the use of draconian law by the enforcement agencies:

1. The more draconian the law invoked against these entities (individual or group), more care has to be exercised by the enforcement agencies to ensure that it will stand up to judicial scrutiny.
   1. For instance, individuals are locked up for years only to be ultimately released by the superior courts.
2. Step has to be taken to limit collateral damage while combating those who seek to harm the state to uphold the foundational values of the Republic.
3. It has to be ensured that matters pertaining to non-bailable cases are decided early by enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

Why media needs regulation?

1. Concerns of propaganda fake news, further increased with the rise of artificial intelligence technology.
2. Media moving towards sensationalism and yellow journalism (publishing sensational news to attract readers and increase circulation).
3. Issue of paid news (someone paying a newspaper and getting something favourable to him published)

Regulation of media in India:

1. Press Council of India (PCI) established under the PCI Act of 1978, acts for preserving the freedom of the press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India.
2. A Code of Ethics for self-regulation of news channels has been devised by the News Broadcasters Association.

• The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), of the NBA, is empowered to warn, admonish, censure, express disapproval and fine the broadcaster a sum up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the Code.  

3. The IT act and IT rules regulates digital media such as online news publications, online curated content publishers including OTTs and social media platforms

Observations by the Judiciary:

1. Being critical of the government cannot be considered ‘anti-establishment’ and refusing security clearance to operate will create a ‘chilling effect’ on press freedom.
2.  Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case (2020)
   1. The case dealt with suspension of mobile phone networks, internet services, and landline connectivity in the valley by the govt in J&K.
   2. The court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information. 
   3. The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the content of the right, nor can it justify its denial.
   4. Right to carry on any trade or business under 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet, is constitutionally protected.