Media industry demands redrafting the Communication Convergence Bill
By "It is restrictive, | 14 Mar 2001
The
regulator will also decide on the tariffs, manage frequency
spectrum, lay down advertising codes, technical and commercial
standards for services, adjudicate and enforce penalties
on violation of provisions through an adjudicating officer,
monitor the system for anti-national activities and intercept
communication when required and take over communication
facilities in times of emergencies such as war or national
calamity.
The Bill when passed by the Parliament will repeal earlier
legislations like: The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; The
Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933; Telegraph Wire Unlawful
Possession Act, 1950; Cable Television Networks (Regulation)
Act 1995 and The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
Act, 1997.
Mr. Ram says the Bill is silent on various important issues
like cross media holdings and various terms are left open
and undefined. Recalling the failed attempts of the government
to enact the Broadcast Bill earlier, Mr. Ram is of the
view that Communication Convergence Bill is an attempt
to reintroduce Broadcast Bill with much wider implications
under a different name.
Earlier, in his pre-recorded inaugural address Mr. Ram
Vilas Paswan, union minister of communications, terming
the proposed legislation as a landmark attempt said, "The
explosion in technology and convergence is an opportunity
and a challenge. We have to ensure that a modern and effective
communication infrastructure is established, taking into
account the convergence of information technology, media,
telecom and consumer electronics."
He said in order to ensure that these services are made
available at an affordable cost to all uncovered areas
and side by side taking into account the security of the
nation, the government has proposed to bring a suitable
legislation and a draft Communication Convergence Bill
has been outlined.
Concurring with Mr. Ram, noted writer Mr. Malan, Sun
TV, expressed fears that provisions relating to maintaining
public order, Indian culture, friendly relations with
a foreign country and preventing portrayal of violence
are in fact methods of implementing censorship and infringing
the Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression and
speech.
Comparing Press Council with the proposed Communication
Commission of India he said, members of the Press Council
are drawn mainly amongst working journalists, owners of
newspapers, etc. On the other hand, when the government
appoints members of Communication Commission, it is wholly
dependent on the government for funds.
According to him, the Bill in fact promotes monopoly of
state-owned television channel, Doordharshan, when
it comes to telecasting important events. "The Bill
inspired by the American model in fact brings hegemony
into the media. It is better for the government to regulate
the technology and not the content," he added.
Crossing swords with them was Mr. T. G. Nallamuthu, additional
principal information officer, Press Information Bureau,
Government of India. He said there should be some regulation
to monitor content. "The government will be blamed
at a later stage if something untoward happens for not
regulating the content." A member from the audience,
who said newspapers always censored/regulated content
by its editorial policies, supported him.
Former promoter of Asianet channel and chairman of Asian Media Institute, Mr. Sashi Kumar Menon called for the adoption of the recommendations of the Nariman Committee, formed to chalk out the constitution of a Communication Commission.
Retired
bureaucrat Mr. B. S. Raghavan criticised the move to make
the cabinet secretary as the chairman of the proposed
Spectrum Management Committee. "Only a technically
qualified professional should be appointed for the post,"
he argued.
Giving a lawyer’s perspective about the Communication
Convergence Bill, Mr. P. S. Surana, partner, Surana &
Surana, citing the government’s habit of sleeping
over critical appointments to Debts Recovery Tribunals
and Consumer Forums, advocated for an independent body
to appoint members of Communication Commission. "Such
appointments should be made in a transparent manner,"
he remarked.
He also warned about the loopholes in the Bill, which
if enacted, would be challenged in High Court. For instance,
Section 50 of the Bill provides for chartered accountants,
company secretaries, cost accountants or legal practitioners
or an officer of the appellant to appear before the Appellate
Tribunal.
Mr.
Surana said, "Firstly, lawyers may challenge this
provision in the High Court as to how other professionals
could represent before a Tribunal. Secondly, others like
engineers, architects and other professionals too can
challenge the provision as discriminatory."
The best way is to say that the appellant or his power
of attorney agent can present his case before the Tribunal,
Mr. Surana pointed out. He also called for defining the
duties and powers of secretary general/chief executive
officer of the Communication Commission.
"There should be a specific provision empowering
the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal to punish for
contempt of itself or for violation of its orders. Unless
there are specific powers, the government or other authorities
may not implement the order and the Commission/Tribunal
will be toothless," he opined.
He also called for specific provisions in the Bill, excluding
the right of the High Court hearing any cases about the
Communication Commission/Tribunal or their orders, thereby
avoiding judicial delays.
On the issue of settlement of disputes by the Tribunal
within 90 days as prescribed in the Bill, Mr. Surana suggested
on fixing sub-time limits for various activities like
numbering of appeal, rectifying errors, allowing not more
than two adjournments of maximum 15 days and pronouncement
of judgment within 15 days of hearing the appeal.