The Supreme Court asked  for a “regulatory mechanism” for tv channels and said government is silent on the action taken against TV channels in a case linked to media reporting on the Tablighi Jamaat .

“The government is silent on the action that has been taken and the power it has to regulate the TV channels. If there is no regulatory mechanism, create one or else we will hand it over to outside agency. Regulation cannot be left to the NBSA (News Broadcasters Standards Authority)” Chief Justice SA Bobde said . He pointed that the top court is not satisfied with the centre’s affidavit which was shared in the top court . the top court berated the government for having a junior officer file what it called an “extremely offensive and brazen” response.

“First, you did not file a proper affidavit and then you filed an affidavit which did not deal with the two important questions. This way it cannot be done Mr Mehta… we are not satisfied with your reply. We asked you to tell about what action taken has been taken. But not a whisper in your affidavit,” the bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, underlining that the government did not deal with the Cable TV Network Act in its response as it highlighted that “applicability of the Act in controlling media has a great consequence in this country”.

“Tell us what’s the present legal regime you have… you haven’t told anything,” the top court said. The Solicitor General told the court that a fresh affidavit will be filed.

The centre has defended the media in this case and said in its response to the Supreme Court that there was “no instance of bad reporting”.

The Supreme Court last month pulled up the centre on its affidavit and said it “must tell us instances of bad reporting” and what action had been taken. “Freedom of speech is one of the most abused freedoms in recent times,” Chief Justice SA Bobde had said during the hearing last month

The post SC ask for regulatory mechanism for TV appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.

Prashant Bhushan, photographed holding up a Re 1 coin, announced at a press conference: “I propose to submit to the order and respectfully pay the fine.”

He said he had always believed the Supreme Court is the “last bastion of hope for the weak and oppressed” and that he never intended to hurt the judiciary, but wanted to express his anguish on a “deviation from its record”.

We hope it was the first and the last occasion that judges have gone to the press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by an internal mechanism. Particularly when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer judges,” the Supreme Court said.

Soon after the ruling, Mr Bhushan had tweeted: “My lawyer and senior colleague Rajiv Dhavan contributed 1 Re immediately after the contempt judgement today which I gratefully accepted.” He also said it was “heartening to see this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech”

The Supreme Court, which had asked for an unconditional apology from the lawyer, noted, “We gave several opportunities and encouragement to (Prashant Bhushan) to express regret. He not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press.”

The court was apparently referring to Prashant Bhushan’s statement refusing to retract his comments or apologise, saying he considered it the discharge of his “highest duty” and apologising would be contempt of his conscience and the court. Mr Bhushan had also said that open criticism was necessary to “safeguard the democracy and its values.”

The statement “was to influence independent Judicial function,” the Supreme Court said, adding that while freedom of expression was important, rights of others should also be respected.
The court also referred to the unprecedented press conference by four Supreme Court judges on January 12, 2018, which Mr Bhushan had cited to argue that even judges had gone public with their criticism of the court.

The post Prashant Bhushan paid 1 rupee fine appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.

While the five-judge bench unanimously agreed to refer the religious issues to a larger bench, a majority verdict by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra decided to keep pending the pleas seeking a review of its decision about the entry of women into Sabarimala.

However, the most verdict did not say anything adverse against the apex court’s September 28, 2018 decision allowing women to enter the shrine nor did it stay the earlier judgement.

The minority verdict by Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud gave a dissenting view by dismissing all the review pleas and directing compliance of its September 28 decision.

The split decision came on as many as 65 petitions — including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas — which were filed after the apex court verdict of September last year sparked violent protests in Kerala.

The apex court, by a majority verdict of 4:1, on September 28, 2018, had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

The post SC Refers Sabarimala Case to Larger Bench appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.