1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (Civil) No. of 2008

SYNOPSIS

01-Jan-2006 to India, our country, is rapidly losing its

war on terror. At last count, in terms of
present day
fatalities due to terror acts, it keeps
company with a host of nations that are
ravaged by war, run over by anarchy,
armed rebellion, military coup, civilian
disobedience and mutinies, famine,
bankruptcies and ignominy – Iraq,
Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria,
Pakistan and the like. For the years 2005,
2006 and 2007, India is clearly ahead of
every other country in the world except
Iraq.

Of the 404 television channels licensed to

operate in India, a number of News and
Current Affairs channels have engaged in
conduct that is detrimental to the
nation’s fight against terror. With respect
to the recent Mumbai attacks, they have
put assaulting terrorists on air to freely
express their views and to state what
motivated them to do so, have declared
exclusivity in unraveling more sinister
bids upon the country by relaying the
confessions of ‘arrested terrorist’, have
themselves connected several ongoing
investigations, formed their own
‘television conclusions’ and have
consulted banned terrorist outfits to
support ‘television conclusions’, have
aired inflammatory speeches of leaders of
banned terrorist outfits and have freely
offered airtime to suspected terrorists to
 2

declare their innocence and have

performed many more acts that portray
and magnify terrorists’ actions even while
according minimal role to the institution
of our Government.

While no democratic country imposes

restraint upon free exchange of news and
views, the fact remains that it is neither a
traditional nor a legitimate function of the
media to facilitate communication
between the terrorists and people they
terrorize. The reporting of terrorist strikes
by the Television media in the context of
information circulated by the terrorists
through these channels is bound to have
a contagious effect upon people prone to
violent tendencies. Their dramatization
and spectacular portrayal further
increases the probability that other
groups or individuals will emulate the
violence being reported. The unrestrained
style of reporting terrorist incidents by
Television media vicariously contributes
to the terrorists’ sense of accomplishment
and runs the risk of significantly
prolonging the consequences. To
disseminate terrorists’ messages in such
a context is to violate public peace.

The media is not immune from ordinary

criminal laws and the petitioner
maintains that the fundamental right of
the citizens of this country to secure a
peaceful existence is considerably
threatened by the acts of terrorism upon
the Indian soil and the media’s
involvement in facilitating dissemination
of terrorists’ messages, statements and
announcements considerably infringes
upon citizens peaceful existence. The
media is operating here in the context of
actual acts of terrorism and their
uninhibited conveyance of messages from
terrorists to the people without any
government interface, specifically in the
 3

context of actual strikes, takes them

away from the role of a mere ‘messenger’
and puts them, under extreme
circumstances, in the position of an
‘aid/extension’ of the terrorists.

Media and terrorism are linked in

democratic societies. Terrorism, by its
very nature, is a psychological weapon
that depends on communicating a threat
to the wider society. This is why there is a
relationship between media and terrorism
based on mutual need. The media in an
open society is in a fiercely competitive
market for their audiences, constantly
under pressure to be first with the news
and to provide more information,
excitement, and entertainment than their
rivals. Success is reflected in increasing
ratings, which then yield higher profits.
Hence, they are almost bound to respond
to ‘terrorists’ deed’ because it is
dramatically bad news.

Acts of terror and media coverage of the

same share a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with
one another. In view, thereof, restraint
upon the television media has become
absolutely essential to contain the
escalating insecurity among the people of
this country.

The omission of Government Respondents

to restrain Television Media Respondents
from disseminating messages and
statements from the terrorists to their
viewers in India is clearly actionable
before a Court of Law competent to direct
a public body to discharge its legal duty
to the public. Consequently, this petition
is filed seeking the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus upon Government
Respondents to restrain Television Media
Respondents from facilitating or relaying
communication from suspected or
apprehended terrorists to their viewers in
 4

India forthwith unless the Government

Respondents consent-in-advance to such
relaying of communication.

13-Dec-2008 Hence, this Writ Petition filed under

Article 32 of our Constitution for the
protection of a fundamental and
paramount right of citizens to public
peace, to compel the Government, in the
light of a failure of its duty to restrain the
media, to restrain the television media
from relaying or disseminating messages
and communication from suspected
terrorists.
 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (Civil) No. of 2008

IN THE MATTER OF:-

A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ESTABLISHING A BREACH OF
DUTY OWED BY GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS TO
RESTRAIN MEDIA RESPONDENTS FROM RELAYING OR
DISSEMINATING MESSAGES AND COMMUNICATION
FROM SUSPECTED TERRORISTS AND FOR RELIEF OF A
MANDAMUS UPON GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS TO SO
RESTRAIN MEDIA RESPONDENTS FROM BREACHING A
FUNDAMENTAL AND PARAMOUNT RIGHT OF CITIZENS
TO PUBLIC PEACE.

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

1 Shekar G Devasa Petitioner
Advocate
No.43
36, Ajanta Apartments
IP Extension
Near AVB Public School
Patparganj
New Delhi – 110092

VERSUS

1 Union of India Respondents

Represented by
Secretary
Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting
Room No.655, ‘A’ Wing
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001

2 Union of India
 6

Represented by
Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block
Central Secretariat
New Delhi – 110 001

3 NDTV Television
Archana Complex
Greater Kailash Part – I
New Delhi -110 048
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

4 CNN-IBN Television
Global Broadcast News
Express Trade Tower
Plot No. 15-16, Sector-16A
Noida – 210 310
Uttar Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

5 HEADLINES TODAY Television

8th Floor,
Videocon Tower
E-1 Jhandewalan Extension
New Delhi – 110 055
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

6 TIMES NOW Television

Times Global Broadcasting
Company Limited
Trade House, 1st Floor
Senapati Bapat Marg
Lower Parel
Mumbai – 400 013
Maharashtra
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

7 NEWS X Television
INX Media Pvt.Ltd
INX House
Dr. Dadasaheb Bhadkamkar Marg
Grant Road (East)
Mumbai - 400 007
Maharashtra
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief
 7

8 AAJ TAK Television

8th Floor,
Videocon Tower
E-1 Jhandewalan Extension
New Delhi – 110 055
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

9 INDIA Television
Independent News Services Private
Ltd (India TV)
Film City
Sector 16A
Noida – 201 301
Uttar Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

10 LIVE INDIA Television

6th Floor,
Adhikari Chambers
Oberoi Complex
New Link Road
Andheri West
Mumbai – 400 053
Maharashtra
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

11 ZEE Television
Essel Studio
FC-19, Sector 16-A
Noida – 201 310
Uttar Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

12 SAHARA Television
Samay Live
Sahara India Center
3rd Floor
2, Kapoorthala Complex
Aliganj
Lucknow – 226 024
Uttar Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

13 STAR NEWS Television

Media Content And
Communications Services (INDIA)
Pvt. Ltd
 8

A-37, Sector 60
Noida – 201 307
Uttar Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

14 EENADU Television
Shodaya Enterprises Limited
Eenadu Complex
Somajiguda
Hyderabad – 500 082
Andhra Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

15 TV9 Television
No.97, Road No.3
Banjara Hills
Hyderabad – 500 082
Andhra Pradesh
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

16 KASTHURI Television
Kasthuri Media Pvt Ltd.
No.12 & 12/1,
Kasturba Road
Bangalore – 560 001
Karnataka
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

17 SUN Television
4, Norton Road
Mandavelli
Chennai – 600 028
Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

18 ASIANET Television
Asianet Communications Ltd.
Asianet Complex,
Puliyarakonam PO
Trivandrum – 695 573
Kerala
Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

To The Lord Chief Justice and his Lord’s Brethren

Justices
 9

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner

above named, Respectfully Showeth:

1. The Petitioner is 32 years old and is a resident of New Delhi.

He is an Advocate in practice at this Hon’ble Court and at the
High Court of Delhi and other courts in Delhi subordinate to
the High Court of Delhi.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of

our Constitution as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the
enforcement of the fundamental right of the citizens of this
country to secure protection against invasion of public peace
by the acts of Media Respondents, 3 to 18.

3. Respondent 1, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,

is the executive branch of our Central Government which
plays a ‘significant part in helping people to have access to free
flow of information. It also caters to the dissemination of
knowledge and entertainment to all sections of society, striking
a careful balance between public interest and commercial
needs, in its delivery of services. Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting is the apex body for formulation and
administration of the rules and regulations and laws relating to
information, broadcasting, the press and films.’1

4. Respondent 2, the Ministry of Home Affairs, is the executive

branch of our Central Government that ‘discharges
multifarious functions, important among them being the
maintenance of Internal Security.’2

1
Prefatory statement of the Ministry
2
Prefatory statement of the Ministry.
 10

5. Respondents 3 to 18 are Television ‘News and Current Affairs’

channels permitted by Respondent 1, the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting to operate in India. No entity is
permitted to operate a Television channel in India unless the
same is first registered and licensed by Respondent 1. At last
count, a total of 404 television channels have been permitted
by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to operate in
India. Respondents 3 to 18 are the major News Channels
amongst the said 404 television channels. Respondents 3 to
18 are primarily devoted to news and current affairs. They are
available to subscribers across the country and the advent of
Direct-To-Home (DTH) has made it possible for people
residing in the most remote corners of our country to gain
access to every channel aired across the country.

6. The Petitioner expresses great concern at the frequency,

magnitude and scale of the escalating terror attacks in the
country. The Petitioner expresses regret for the fact that our
country is losing its war on terror. ‘Since 2006, India has
witnessed at least 73 incidents of terrorist attacks. The
frequency of these strikes has accelerated rapidly in the past
two years: there were 12 attacks in 2006, 13 in 2007 and there
have been 48 to date in the current year.’3 ‘The conflict in
Jammu and Kashmir, attacks by extreme Leftist Naxalites and
Maoists in eastern and central India, assaults by ethno-
linguistic nationalists in the north-eastern States, and terrorist
strikes nationwide by Islamic extremists took more than 2,300
lives this year’4. Given the magnitude, frequency and the
regularity of terror attacks upon Indian soil, it must be said
3
Institute for Defence Studies And Analysis
4
2007 Report on Terrorism – United States National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
 11

that our country is losing its war on terror and terrorists are
increasingly emboldened to strike bigger and perform more
daring attacks. The recent Mumbai terror attacks are, by the
terrorists’ own statements and admissions on the media,
signs of escalating ambitions and security agencies caution
that more is to be expected.

7. Some of the major terrorist attacks on our country over the

last three years may be noted:

Date Place Casualty

26-Nov-2008 Mumbai 188 people killed, 293
injured in the attacks at
Chhatrapati Sivaji
Terminal, Oberoi Trident,
Taj Mahal Palace And
Tower, Leopold Café, Cama
Hospital, Nariman House
and Metro Cinema

30-Oct-2008 Assam Atleast 45 killed and 100

injured in 18 terror
bombings across Assam

17-Oct-2008 Imphaal 17 Killed in a powerful

blast near Manipur Police
Commando complex

14-Oct-2008 Kanpur Eight people injured.

Bombs planted on a
bicycle in Colenelganj
market

29-Sep-2008 Malegaon, 5 people die. Bomb kept in

Maharashtra a motorbike explodes in a
 12

crowded market

29-Sep-2008 Modasa, One Killed and several

Gujarat injured after an explosion
near a mosque

13-Sep-2008 New Delhi 26 people killed in six

blasts across the city

16-Jul-2008 Ahmedabad 57 people killed after

synchronised timing of 20
bomb devices

25-Jul-2008 Bangalore 1 person killed and several

injured after co-ordinated
bomb blasts across the
city.

31-May-2008 Jaipur 68 people killed in serial

bombings

25-Aug-2007 Hyderabad 42 people killed in two

blasts – one at a popular
eatery and another at a
public stadium

19-Feb-07 Samjauta 66 people killed after 2

Express firebombs went off on the
India – Pakistan friendship
train.

8-Sep-2008 Malegaon, 40 people killed in two

Maharashtra blasts

11-Jul-2006 Mumbai 209 blasts killed in Seven

blasts on suburban trains
 13

and stations.

7-Mar-2006 Varanasi 21 people killed in three

blasts including one at a
temple and another at a
railway station.

29-Oct-2005 New Delhi 61 people killed in three

blasts on the eve of Diwali

25-Aug-2005 Mumbai 46 people killed in two

blasts including one near
the Gateway of India

24-Sep-2002 Gandhinagar 34 people killed in the

attack on Akshardam
Temple

8. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner humbly submits

that the Television channels broadcasting news and current
affairs, that is, Respondents 3 to 18, have engaged in conduct
that is detrimental to the nation’s fight against terror. With
respect to the recent Mumbai attacks, they have put
assaulting terrorists on air to freely express their views and to
state what motivated them to do so, have declared exclusivity
in unraveling more sinister bids upon the country by relaying
the confessions of ‘arrested terrorist’, have themselves
connected several ongoing investigations, formed their own
‘television conclusions’ and have consulted banned terrorist
outfits to support ‘television conclusions’, have aired
inflammatory speeches of leaders of banned terrorist outfits
and have freely offered airtime to suspected terrorists to
declare their innocence and have performed many more acts
 14

that portray and magnify terrorists’ actions even while

according minimal role to the institution of our Government.
Respondents 3 to 18 shall be referred to hereinafter as the
‘media’ wherever the context admits.

9. The people of this country have a fundamental right to a

peaceful existence and the same is unduly threatened by the
relentless exposure to expanded terrorism brought forth by
the media. The media freely contacts suspected terrorists and
puts them on air for a free dissemination of their views or
denials. While no democratic country imposes restraint upon
free exchange of news and views, the fact remains that it is
neither a traditional nor a legitimate function of the media to
facilitate communication between the terrorists and people
they terrorize.

10.The electronic media is unique in terms of its feature –

pervasive and intrusive nature of its reporting. By attacking
highly visible or sensitive targets in a dramatic manner,
terrorists make a direct appeal to traditional news values by
exploiting the news industry’s attraction to ‘dramatic, conflict
laden and devastating’ tragic events. The media thus
unwittingly furthers terrorists’ objectives by publicising an
incident that was staged principally for the purpose of
spreading fear through the media.

11.The terrorists’ aims are clearly not aimed at individuals but

at destroying the values that characterise this nation –
diversity, toleration, kindness and a belief in a higher purpose
for human life.
 15

12. If a citizen of our country were to install a loudspeaker in a

crowded market and relay messages originating from one or
more banned terrorist outfits, say, from the Pakistan-
Occupied-Kashmir (POK), he clearly commits the offence of
aiding and supporting an assault upon the State and its
people even if the content of the message itself is not
inflammatory per se. The laws governing such conduct do not
apply with equal force to the registered media and the media
is subject to a lesser restriction in the hope of furthering
democratic goals of facilitating free exchange of views and
opinion. However, the liberty confirmed upon the media in
our country has resulted in them practically abandoning
much discretion in the matter of reporting upon terrorism
and competitive pressures have virtually pushed them to
compete for ‘scaring the most’.

13.As such, the petitioner, as a member of the affected class, the

people of India, begs the leave of this Hon’ble court to direct
Government Respondents 1 and 2 to restrain Media
Respondents 3 to 18 from broadcasting any message or
communication from any suspect terrorist without the
interface of the Government. The petitioner’s insistence upon
government interface is to inhibit the media from breaching
public peace.

14. While the media is certainly free to express its views and
inherently possesses the right and freedom to facilitate free
expression of views and opinions, this freedom does not
extend to a liberty to endanger the safety of people at large by
disseminating threatening or damaging information with
respect to matters pertaining to acts of terror.
 16

15. Indian media is subject to fewer or no restrictions in the

matter of content it airs for the public and this fact is
welcome by the petitioners. However, the media is not
immune from ordinary criminal laws and the petitioner
maintains that the fundamental right of the citizens of this
country to secure a peaceful existence is considerably
threatened by the acts of terrorism upon the Indian soil and
the media’s involvement in facilitating dissemination of
terrorists messages, statements and announcements
considerably infringes upon the citizens peaceful existence.
While the media is certainly not restrained from relaying live
coverage of acts of terror, they violate citizens peace when
they put assaulting terrorists on air to freely express their
views and to state what motivated them to do so, declare
exclusivity in unraveling more sinister bids upon the country
by relaying the confessions of ‘arrested terrorist’, connect
several ongoing investigations, form their own ‘television
conclusions’ and consult banned terrorist outfits to support
‘television conclusions’, air inflammatory speeches of leaders
of banned terrorist outfits and freely offer airtime to
suspected terrorists to declare their innocence and perform
many more acts that portray and magnify terrorists’ actions.

16. The petitioner is not in the least suggesting that our

Government is not at fault in preventing terrorist attacks or
that the media should be excluded from reporting truth about
our government. Rather, the petitioner asserts that the
actions of the media respondents outlined earlier are
indistinguishable from a television station unwittingly
sympathetic to terrorists.
 17

17. The Petitioner further asserts that television channels in the

United States, the jurisdiction with the least governmental
restraint upon content of expression, routinely broadcast
messages from suspected terrorists and do so without any
government interface whatsoever. The fact however remains
that those broadcasts are aired in the context of their
government effectively preventing any terrorist attack upon
their soil ever after 11-September-2001 (the day on which the
Two World Trade Centre Towers in New York were hit by
passenger planes hijacked by terrorists) and the terrorists
statements are disseminated in a context that does not
witness an actual terror event. However, the situation
prevailing in India is in utter contrast to the situation in the
United States. The media is operating here in the context of
actual acts of terrorism and their uninhibited conveyance of
messages from terrorists to the people without any
government interface, specifically in the context of actual
strikes, takes them away from the role of a mere ‘messenger’
and puts them, under extreme circumstances, in the position
of an ‘aid/extension’ of the terrorists.

18.The petitioner furnishes below, excerpts from a scholarly

analysis, ‘TERRORIST IS A STAR’ authored by Michelle Ward
Ghetti and published in the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
LAW JOURNAL, June, 2008:

"There is no need to cry in the wilderness when anyone so

inclined can plead his case on national television."

Since 1982, the lower federal courts in the United States

have dealt with the balance between media and the First
Amendment in only limited ways. They have dealt with the
reporter's privilege and found it insufficient to block the
 18

government's access to phone records relevant to funding of

terrorism or defendants' access to videotaped interviews of
terrorists, they have restricted media coverage of deportation
proceedings where terrorism is involved, and they have
found no right of the media to imbed a journalist with the
troops. They have also dealt with civil claims against media
alleging that the media outlet aided and abetted crime or
negligently caused harm to another person.

II INTRODUCTION.
One of the problems of combating incidences of publicity-
seeking crime is media involvement. Violence or threats of
violence have long been deemed ‘newsworthy’ items by the
media. Publicity-seeking criminals have recognized this fact
and put it to full use. By attacking highly visible targets in a
dramatic manner, publicity-seeking criminals guarantee
themselves saturated news coverage. They make a shocking
appeal to traditional news values by making full use of the
news industry's attraction to the dramatic, conflict-laden,
and potentially tragic event. The media thus furthers the
criminals' objectives by publicizing an incident that was
staged for the very purpose of obtaining media coverage.
This has come to be called by many as a ‘symbiotic
relationship.’

Critics both within and outside the news industry have

begun to voice an awareness, if not a concern, for the ease
with which such criminals obtain publicity on both a national
and international platform.

III. THE PROBLEM OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF PUBLICITY-

SEEKING CRIMES
The objectives of terrorists, other than seeking publicity, are
often coercion, extortion, disorientation and despair,
provocation of unpopular countermeasures, and (with regard
to the terrorists themselves) morale-building.

If nothing else, commentators seem to agree on one thing - to

these people, more conventional means of communication
seem to be unavailable or ineffective.

Scattered, isolated incidents of violence by themselves are of

little use to publicity-seekers in producing their objectives of
 19

fear, coercion, and publication of a cause or self-

identification. Terrorists rely on the psychological impact of
acts rather than their immediate destructive consequences.
To achieve such impact, publicity-seeking criminals need to
publicize their acts as widely as possible. Since the mass
media have the ability to confer importance upon an
individual or an event merely by presenting it, they play a
major role in the spreading and intensification of the desired
psychological impact. With the advent of increasing numbers
of technological communicative advances, publicity-seeking
criminals are able to command the immediate attention of
millions, enabling these criminals to work their felonious will
on whole nations rather than just the hostages in their
presence.

The media has been described as ‘a powerful force,

sometimes more influential than government itself.’

American mass media--electronic (television and radio) and

print (newspaper and magazine) -- are commercial
enterprises just as any other business. They exist and thrive
by making profits. Profits are obtained from selling time or
space to advertisers at rates determined by circulation or
audience size. The larger the audience, the more each
medium prospers. The availability of attention-getting content
serves the audience-attracting needs of the industry. The
dramatic, often emotional events staged by publicity-seeking
criminals make news, sell newspapers, and draw millions to
the television set. This adds handsomely to the profits of
media owners, advertisers, shareholders, and employees
(and no doubt to the job security of the journalists covering
the event) and contributes to the overall ‘success’ news
reporting has seen in recent years.

As the line between ‘news’ and ‘entertainment’ grows less

and less visible, and as the commercial objectives of news
carriers become more and more evident, publicity-seeking
criminals can be expected to continue, if not escalate, their
efforts to feed on this audience-attracting need.

What if this situation continues to exist? What are the

consequences?
 20

Professor Bassouini has determined four main effects of

media coverage of publicity-seeking crimes: intimidation,
imitation, immunization, and imperilization. Media coverage
of publicity-seeking crimes often (1) enhances the
environment of fear and coercion the terrorists seek to
generate (intimidation factor); (2) encourages other
individuals to engage in such conduct (imitation factor); (3)
dulls the sense of outrage and contempt in the general public
(immunization factor); and (4) endangers hostages' lives and
interferes with effective law enforcement (imperilization
factor).

A. Intimidation
By focusing on terrorist events and giving them a
disproportionate amount of news coverage, the media
engenders the feeling in the viewing public that such events
are more common and, therefore, more dangerous than they
really are. Media, particularly television, gives the effect of
authenticity per se. It gives the criminal the auspices of
power in a short time, with little effort, on a wide scale. In
some respects, the modern ‘terrorist’ is ‘created’ by the
media - they magnify and enlarge him and his powers far
beyond its true magnitude. In effect, television puts everyone
at the scene of the crime, helpless to do anything,
engendering feelings of anxiety and fear - the terrorist's
instruments of coercion. This public anxiety enhances the
perceived power of the terrorist in his own eyes as well as
the eyes of his peer group and others. This enhanced power
often leads to imitation and the cycle repeats itself.

B. Imitation
According to leading sociologists, ‘among all the different
ways one might behave in given circumstances, any
particular way is more likely to be repeated when the
circumstances recur if the previous time it was done it was
followed by some gratifying experience.’ This is referred to
as the ‘operant conditioning model.’ This can also occur as a
result of vicarious reinforcement through observational
learning.

Therefore, if a would-be terrorist sees someone else's terror-

inspiring act succeeding (i.e., resulting in a gratifying
 21

experience) then the probability that the would-be terrorist

will engage in similar acts is increased. If publicity is what
these individuals seek, then receiving such publicity is
gratifying and rewarding. By providing such a ‘reward’ to
publicity-seeking criminals, media is reinforcing and
encouraging present and future terrorists. An excellent
example of such a phenomenon took place during the Iran
crisis. Shortly after the incident began, United States'
Embassies were attacked in Bangladesh, Libya, and
Pakistan, basically following the steps of the successful
Iranians.

But, to quote former Surgeon General Jesse Steinfield,

‘There comes a time when data are sufficient to justify
action.’ There is a strong argument that the time is now.
Ninety-three per cent of police chiefs surveyed in a recent
study felt like live television coverage of terrorist acts
encouraged terrorism. Sixty-four percent of the general
public surveyed in a 1977 Gallup poll believed detailed
news coverage of terrorism encourages others to commit
similar crimes. It is also suggested that terrorist groups
conform to certain media stereotypes in their internal
organizational structure, chain of command, choice of
targets, time, place, and manner of action, and even in the
attitudes of their members.

C. Immunization
Constant and detailed coverage of publicity-seeking crimes
has three less immediate and perhaps more subtle effects on
society. First, it increases the level of public tolerance of such
crimes and lessens the feeling of righteous indignation.

Second, the portrayal of all terrorists as crazies or as

individuals and/or organizations beyond society's means of
control suggests to the public that there is nothing that can
be done to solve the problem.

Third, repeated coverage of terrorist events tends to

conceptualize the act. Instead of seeing an individual
criminal, an individual victim, or an individual policeman, the
public perceives roles -- i.e., terrorists, hostages, law
enforcement agencies -- being played in a huge chess game.
 22

The individual act becomes an event and the human

dimensions become lost.

D. Imperilization
Ongoing coverage of hostage-taking incidents is the hotbed
of the media coverage controversy, and yet the problems
seen there are probably the most susceptible to legal
solution. There are two general areas of conflict: (1) media
dissemination of information tactically useful to the publicity-
seeking criminal and (2) media interference with an effective
law enforcement response.

1. Media dissemination of information

Media can serve as the ‘intelligence arm’ of the criminal in
many ways. Today, in most hostage situations, the criminal
has a television or radio device within near proximity. By
broadcasting police strategies, activities, plans, or the
presence of hidden persons or escaping hostages, the media
endangers the lives of the hostages, law enforcement
personnel, and innocent citizens. They also assist the
criminals in determining escape routes and repelling police
assaults.

2. Media interference with law enforcement

The physical presence of the media often interferes with the
law enforcement agencies at the scene that are trained to
effectively handle such situations. The somewhat obtrusive
equipment interferes with their free movement and attracts
crowds which compound the risk and increase the burden
on the police. Questioning by a multitude of reporters can
often distract key personnel at critical moments. Direct media
contact with the criminal can tie up telephone access, incite
the criminal by use of inflammatory questions or phrases,
goad the criminal into action to prove himself in the spotlight,
and can have the effect of isolating a trained professional
negotiator from the mediating process by increasing the role
of the untrained media person. Police officials claim that the
stampede of journalists to interview terrorists reinforces their
sense of power and accomplishment. Often, the mere
presence of the media encourages terrorists to remain
barricaded or to demand a press conference so as to
increase coverage.
 23

Why then, with the multitude of bad consequences, do the

media continue to grant such all-pervasive coverage to
publicity-seeking criminals? The profit motive was
considered earlier.

Walter Jaehnig, a professor of journalism himself, terms this

role the ‘libertarian tradition.’ Libertarianism lacks a moral
code or philosophy and promotes moral neutrality. When
asked if a distinction shouldn't be made between terrorist
acts and civil disobedience and the coverage keyed to such
a distinction, an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper
answered that ‘once we start making judgments of this sort
... I think the media is ... doing something far different from
its basic role of simply informing.’

This idea is simply not true. First, it assumes that such

judgments are not already being made. Every day, editors
and news producers decide what's ‘newsworthy’ and what's
not, how much coverage will be given, how it will be
classified, how the headline will read, who will be
interviewed, how many reporters and cameras should be
sent, and so forth. Second, with the instantaneous coverage
permitted by the minicam, the individual decision of where
one wants to go and what one wants to see has been taken
away from the individual and put in the hands of the press.
They have become the eyes and ears of the public -- a
conduit, a surrogate. Like it or not, the media has the
responsibility of deciding for the public what they want to
experience in their lives. The roles of the neutral, uninvolved
observer and recorder of fact are antiquated ones if they
even exist at all. Particularly in the area of coverage of
publicity-seeking crimes, journalists today are often thrust
into a life and death situation. Every reporter covering such
an event must decide whether his actions are going to be
governed by the interests of the hostages/victims, public
authorities and the community at large, or the newsgathering
and financial interests of his station or newspaper.

An additional purpose or role of the free press, as perceived

by Justice Stewart and others, is to act as an additional
check on the three official branches of government. In fact,
the press has come to be termed the ‘Fourth Estate.’ This,
 24

arguably, is an important role the media does play. But the

coverage of publicity-seeking crimes is not related to the
functioning of any one of our three branches of government.
Even if the criminal's purpose is to draw attention to what he
considers a defect in our governmental system, he must be
made to understand that there are many nonviolent ways for
his protest to be heard within the legitimate parameters of
free speech. He has no constitutional right to express himself
in violent ways at the expense of innocent people, yet the
media nearly guarantee him just such a right. In addition,
there are other ways for the media to provide him a forum
for expression and to inform the public about an individual's
grievances with our government in ways that do not
publicize these violent acts.

As argued later in this Article, limited access and perhaps

restraints on publicizing life-endangering information prior to
the culmination of the event would still allow the public to
stay informed and yet alleviate some of the problems related
to media coverage of such crimes.

These are legitimate observations. It must be remembered,

however, that were the media not there to begin with, in all
likelihood neither would be the terrorists; the immediacy of
rumors usually only affect the immediate area and can be
dissipated with minimal coverage. In a trade-off between
giving tactical information to the terrorists which would
endanger lives and getting tactical information from the
terrorists, not many would choose the latter. Also, as has
been previously argued, saturation coverage has the same
effect on possible escalation in forms of violence as does
lack of coverage and media-created anxiety is ‘functional
rather than dysfunctional’ only when it prepares individuals
to confront danger realistically which current coverage
doesn't do.

V. SOLUTIONS
What, then, can be done? A number of suggestions have
been made by both law enforcement officials, government
and the media. However, very little else has been done.
These suggestions can be divided into two basic groups:
non-content-related and content-related.
 25

A. Non-content-related Suggestions
The most often recommended and probably most feasible
suggestion is to limit the media's access to the crime scene.
Possibilities include setting up a ‘broadcast area’ near police
lines for bulletins and interviews, setting up a ‘briefing area’
for off-the-record information where no cameras or recording
equipment would be allowed, establishing a police hotline
that would be updated continuously, appointing an official
police spokesperson to give periodic briefings, and restricting
direct contact with the criminal during an ongoing crime.
Another non-content related suggestion is to restrict the use
of cameras and lighting or allow only lone camera shots.
Finally, some suggest limiting the number of reporters
allowed on the scene by using pool reporters to cover
activities on behalf of all news organizations and agencies.
One journalist, himself having been held hostage, proposed
that a committee of editors in the city experiencing the
incident be empowered to declare and enforce a ‘news
emergency’ under which certain rules of the profession be
suspended and where protecting or, at least, not
endangering the lives of hostages would be top priority.
Anyone violating this rule would be subject to disciplinary
action by his employer. It has been suggested that instead of
regulating the actual on-the-scene press activities, the law
enforcement agencies could offer training to media
representatives in handling hostage situations. It is felt that
through this educational process the media would become
more aware of the problems and be better able to
understand the police requests made and consequently be
more apt to follow them.

B Content-related Suggestions.
The content-related suggestions can be further divided into
two more groups: limitations on what information is to be
released and requirements of specific information to be
released.

Limiting information: Suggestions to limit information include:

Police tactical information which could prejudice the lives of
hostages or potential victims should not be released; any
inflammatory or aggravating information should be delayed
until the incident is over; sensationalism should be avoided;
 26

reports should be confined to police disseminated

information only, at least until the incident is over; ‘how to’
information relating to terrorist tactics should be avoided;
and the name of any individual or group claiming
responsibility for a bombing should be withheld.

C. Providing Information
Most authorities agree that at least the media should strive
to give a balanced treatment of the phenomenon. They
should provide information from official sources in answer to
the criminal's self-serving statements. They should give
follow-up coverage of the incident; for example, they should
cover the law enforcement and judicial responses to the
criminal and his actions. Some feel that media has the
responsibility to educate the public concerning the
impropriety of taking innocent lives in order to publicize
demands and grievances, the relative infrequency of such
acts, the legitimate needs of law enforcement in a democratic
society, and the non-romantic aspects of terrorism. The
media do indeed contribute to the problem of publicity-
seeking crime. Is it not too much to hope that they would also
contribute to its solution?

Perhaps it is too much to expect of the media. Since 1941,

the media have been urged to police themselves. And yet, it
took a flurry of incidents in 1977 to even get some
‘guidelines’ proposed and randomly adopted. Western
media officials are now aware of the dangers inherent in the
coverage of publicity-seeking crimes but the competitive
pressures are strong, ‘professional judgment’ may be
unattainable, and the industry is fragmented in nature and
therefore hard to control from within.

The competitiveness of news organizations, their fear of

being ‘scooped’ by the opposition, and their aforementioned
quest for larger audiences and prestige combine to
encourage rather than discourage escalated reporting
techniques and sensationalistic coverage. Many police
officials, in fact, believe that it is the competition between
newsmen, inspired by their respective news organizations,
that lies at the root of the problem. An individual reporter
who might refrain from covering a particular event for
 27

personal ethical reasons will more often succumb to the

subtle persuasion of potential career enhancement. Network
policies of recruitment and advancement assure that
newsroom policies rather than philosophical principles
succeed in network news. Newspaper staffers also conform
to newsroom policies due to the somewhat more subtle
factors of socialization within the job environment and
esteem for superiors. Reporters are seeking to establish the
reputation of being first with the news and first with the
viewers. Neither factor is conducive to operating a self-
regulated industry. Neither is either factor conducive to
responsible reporting.

The media industry argues that they are a profession and

that like any other recognized profession -- e.g, doctors or
lawyers -- should be allowed to regulate themselves.
However, journalists are not now and have never been truly
considered ‘professionals.’ They have no intense period of
specialization; they, in fact, abhor responsibility for their
judgments and actions; they tend to place greater emphasis
on economic gain rather than personal service; they have no
comprehensive self-governing organization; and they have
no true Code of Ethics subject to clarification and
interpretation by the courts. In truth, there is no reason to
expect the industry to be ‘professional’ enough to regulate
itself.

Finally, self-regulation itself is an almost impossible task

given the vast number of organizations nationwide with no
central authority. The National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB), which most television stations belong to and which
has been instrumental in regulating such areas as the family
viewing hour, is the nearest thing in the industry to a central
authority; however, membership is not mandatory. Even the
United States Supreme Court has openly recognized the
problems inherent in fragmented self-imposed restraints:
reporters from distant places are unlikely to be guided by
their own standards and state courts have real practical
difficulties in controlling newspapers or broadcasters outside
of their jurisdiction.
 28

A few words should be said at this point concerning the

unique status of the electronic media (television and radio).
The Supreme Court has been willing to recognize a limited
distinction between printed and electronic media. Rationales
for the different treatment of the broadcasting industry
include: (1) airwaves are in the public domain and, as such,
the grant of a license is a privilege, not a right; (2) due to a
scarcity of airways, some regulation must occur so as to
guarantee the public an uncluttered, comprehensible
broadcast; (3) the unique power of the medium; and (4) the
pervasive and intrusive nature of the medium. The Court has
upheld regulation of the broadcasting medium by the FCC
who has been empowered by the Communications Act of
1934 to grant renewable licenses on the basis of a ‘public
interest, convenience, or necessity’ standard.

However, … suggested that the prohibition against prior

restraints is not absolute, noting that limitations on First
Amendment protection might be recognized in the following
situations: (1) to ‘prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting
service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or
the number and location of troops’ (troopship exception); (2)
to enforce the ‘primary requirements of decency’ against
obscene publications; (3) to protect the community ‘against
incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of
orderly government;’ and (4) to enjoin ‘against uttering
words that may have all the effect of force.’

Particularly in ongoing situations involving hostages or

potential victims, media reporters should be able to predict
with a reasonable degree of certainty that a harmful act is
likely to result from certain broadcasts. That the act is
physically perpetrated by a third party should make the
media no less culpable. Media corporations should be held
financially responsible for harm caused to innocent victims
through the fault of the media's employees. They profit from
the broadcast of the incident and in a just and fair system,
that profit should be made available to compensate the
victim of the activity.

Where the public goes, so goes the press. Historically, the

public has not had access to prisons; therefore, regulating
 29

media access would not be discriminatory against the press,

but would merely eliminate a special privilege the press has
vis-a-vis the public. Similarly, restricting media access to the
scene of a publicity-seeking crime would surely be within
constitutional bounds. The Supreme Court has specifically
said, "Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to
scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is
excluded." Except to know whether they are in immediate
danger, the public has no real interest in the details of a
crime -- other than morbid interest in the tragedy of others on
which our society seems to thrive. Therefore, the press,
having no greater access rights than the general public,
could constitutionally be restricted in their access to
publicity-seeking crimes and criminals.

As has been detailed previously, the Supreme Court, at least

in areas other than news coverage, has been willing to make
a distinction between the printed and electronic media. It is
time for that distinction to flow over into the area of news
broadcasting. News broadcasting poses unique problems not
present in the traditional free speech case and certainly
inconceivable to the framers of the Constitution. It is
pervasive, becoming less and less edited, and gives the
impression of ‘authenticity per se.’

In summation, then, what can be done? The problems

created by media coverage of publicity-seeking crimes are,
again, that: (1) unbalanced media coverage enhances the
environment of fear and coercion the terrorists seek to
generate, (2) such coverage may encourage other individuals
to engage in such conduct, (3) such coverage will dull the
sense of outrage and contempt in the general public; and (4)
such coverage can endanger hostage's lives and interfere
with effective law enforcement.

By not showing the actual crime being perpetrated on the

screens of viewers' living room television sets, feelings of
anxiety and fear could be lessened. By not showing the
criminals in the act of committing the crime, much of the
gratification is removed from the act for the criminal and for
those who might imitate him. Again, by not continually
showing the gory details as they happen, the viewing public
 30

becomes less immunized against the atrocities of crime. The

reasons for limiting access are not related to the intimidation,
imitation, or immunization factors but are based on the
safety of potential victims.

When media coverage becomes an immediate threat to the

lives of potential victims of publicity-seeking crimes, it is very
possible that finely tailored government regulation is
possible in all four forms: prior restraints, subsequent
punishment, access restrictions, and FCC regulations.

First and foremost, the Government should require that on-

the-scene coverage should be limited to only those reporters
who have had training in terrorist situations. Such selective
access could be supported as long as it furthers a compelling
governmental interest identified by narrowly drawn
standards. Secondly, all suggestions made regarding
broadcast areas, briefing areas, police hotlines, police
spokespersons, direct contact with criminals during ongoing
situations, and so forth could be justified based on the fact
that the public has no need or right to be at the scene and
the press has no more rights than the public, the lack of
governmental alternatives in dealing with the problem, and
the gravity of the harm.

It is quite possible that prior restraints could operate to

restrain a newsman from publishing information such as
police strategies, activities, or plans or the presence of
hidden persons or escaping hostages. Such publication
would ‘surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable
damage to our Nation's ... people.’

Media reporters, especially those trained in terrorist tactics,

should know what information, if released, would endanger
lives. Such knowledge should make them and their
respective employers liable for any harm caused because of
their actions.

Three of the purposes for constitutionally guaranteeing

freedoms of expression and of the press were 1) the
advancement of knowledge and discovery of truth, as an
essential element of self-governance, 2) the provision of a
safety valve by substituting reason for force, and 3) the
 31

providing of a framework within which the conflict necessary

to the progress of society could take place without destroying
society. Media coverage of publicity-seeking crimes thwarts
all three objectives.

As to the purpose of advancement of knowledge, in the

technological world of today, the majority of the public is
informed through television news. Should a person decide
that he or she does not want his or her children to watch a
publicity-seeking crime as it takes place -- a decision which,
given the chance, most persons would probably make -- he
must completely give up his constitutionally guaranteed
source of information (since he has no control over the
sequence of the news). Secondly, by giving publicity and
gratification to these criminals, newspersons are
encouraging substitution of force for reason -- which is a
complete contradiction to the very purpose they serve. And,
finally, instead of providing a framework within which
conflict can take place without destroying society, they
provide a framework within which to destroy society.

19. This Hon’ble Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
of India5 stated that:

‘Terrorist acts are meant to destabilize the nation by

challenging its sovereignty and integrity, to raze the
constitutional principles that we hold dear, to create a
psyche of fear and anarchism among common people, to tear
apart the secular fabric, to overthrow democratically elected
government, to promote prejudice and bigotry, to demoralize
the security forces, to thwart the economic progress and
development and so on. This cannot be equated with a usual
law and order problem within a State. On the other hand, it
is inter-state, inter-national or cross-border in character.
Fight against the overt and covert acts of terrorism is not a
regular criminal justice endeavor. Rather it is defence of our

5
AIR 2004 SC 456 : (2004) 9 SCC 580
 32

nation and its citizens. It is a challenge to the whole nation

and invisible force of Indianness that binds this great nation
together. Therefore, terrorism is a new challenge for law
enforcement. By indulging in terrorist activities organized
groups or individuals, trained, inspired and supported by
fundamentalists and anti-Indian elements were trying to
destabilize the country. This new breed of menace was
hitherto unheard of. Terrorism is definitely a criminal act, but
it is much more than mere criminality. Today, the
government is charged with the duty of protecting the unity,
integrity, secularism and sovereignty of India from terrorists,
both from outside and within borders. To face terrorism we
need new approaches, techniques, weapons, expertise and
of course new laws.’

20. The fatalities by Country (as published by the National

Counter Terrorism Center, an executive agency of the United
States Government) for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 may
be noted below. The rank secured by our country in this list
is utterly incomprehensible to sociologists who are quite
unable to explain India’s inclusion (not to mention, the higher
ranking) in a club of nations primarily ravaged by war,
anarchy, totalitarianism, civil mutinies, armed rebellion or
breakdown of established forms of government.

For the year 2005

Rank Country Fatalities
1 Iraq 13340
2 India 1256
3 Afghanistan 1042
4 Sudan 716
5 Sri Lanka 627
6 Columbia 533
7 Thailand 520
 33

8 Chad 518
9 Pakistan 387
10 Philippines 291

For the year 2006

Rank Country Fatalities
1 Iraq 8262
2 India 1361
3 Columbia 813
4 Afghanistan 684
5 Thailand 498
6 Nepal 485
7 Pakistan 338
8 Russia 238
9 Sudan 157
10 Congo 154

For the year 2007

Rank Country Fatalities
1 Iraq 13606
2 Afghanistan 1966
3 Pakistan 1335
4 India 1093
5 Thailand 859
6 Somalia 767
7 Sudan 403
8 Chad 368
9 Columbia 364
10 Sri Lanka 241

21. The simple relief sought for by the petitioner is a judicial

order to ensure that Media Respondents 3 to 18 do not
facilitate any communication between suspected or
apprehended terrorists and the citizens of this country except
with the prior approval of our executive Government,
Respondents 1 and 2. It may be noted here that the 2 nd
Respondent, the Ministry of Home Affairs has recognised a
 34

list of 34 organisations as ‘Terrorist Organisations’ under the

provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19676.

22. It has become necessary to seek such a judicial order in view

of the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 have failed to discharge
their obligation respectively to impose reasonable restraint
upon conduct of the media, which conduct is clearly
disruptive of public peace. The people of this country have a
reasonable right to expect peaceful existence and this
reasonable right is clearly a fundamental right and is the
underlying context of every enumerated fundamental right in
part III of our Constitution.

23. Article 14 that forbids unequal treatment or unjust

favouritism by the State, Article 15 that forbids
discrimination against citizens upon enumerated grounds,
article 16 that secures equality of opportunity in matters of
public employment – are provisions clearly devoted to
securing a peaceful co-existence amongst the diverse people
of our country.

24. Article 17 that forbids untouchability, Article 18 that forbids

grant of nobility or titles – are provisions clearly devoted to
securing a harmonius social balance amongst people
historically grouped into arbitrary hierarchies. The underlying
aim thereof being peaceful coexistence of people.

6
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, a Central Statute, is
a self-contained code of provisions for declaring secessionist
associations as unlawful and imposes certain restrictions on the
liberties secured by our Constitution – Freedom of Speech and
Expression, Right to Assemble Peacefully and without Arms and the
Right to Form Association or Unions.
 35

25. Peaceful co-existence is impossible unless there is a peaceful

existence in the first place and the right to a peaceful
existence is clearly the unimpeachable basis of Articles 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18 of our Constitution.

26. Article 19 that guarantees individual liberties and which

prescribes grounds for restraint, Article 20 that protects
against punishment for acts that violate future laws and
which prohibits ‘double jeopardy’ and ‘self-incrimination’,
Article 21 which ensures that neither ‘life’ nor ‘personal
liberty’ shall suffer except according to procedure established
by law – are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful
existence for the citizens.

27.Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 that enshrine the right to freedom

of religion are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful
existence for the citizens.

28.Articles 29 and 30 that safeguard interests of the minorities

are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful existence for
the citizens.

29. Accordingly, the right to a peaceful existence is clearly a

fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens of our country
and the same is put to increasing assault given the increase
in incidents of acts of terror and escalating media ambitions -
the news media’s obsession for display of disorder and
destruction on a scale grander than its nearest competitor.

30. The petitioner further invites the attention of this Hon’ble

Court to another scholarly analysis on the competitive
pressure upon Television media and on the utter
 36

abandonment by the media of discretion and responsibility in

its relentless pursuit of presenting terrorist acts on screen,
‘TERRORISM AND NEWS MEDIA’ by Time Dunne7:

The reality is that terrorists win when they don’t lose, and
police and security forces of western democracies lose when
they don’t win.

The news media, by the tenets of their profession and the

fundamental nature of the work, are drawn to these events
as moths to a flame. Theirs is the responsibility to cover,
witness, analyze and report. However, negligent, careless,
or irresponsible reporting can prolong an event, or result in
injury, death and damage.

Modern terrorism involves the use of violence to influence the

actions and attitudes of their intended audiences through the
use or the threat of use, of violence against innocent people
in a way that captures the attention of the news media and,
through them, to the world’s public.

As time moved on, those who use terrorism as a political tool

became increasingly aware of the capability of generally-

7
Tim Dunne is a retired Canadian military public affairs officer with
32 years of service. He served on both of Canada’s coasts and in
Ottawa. His experience includes peacekeeping missions in Israel,
Egypt, Syria and the Balkans. He served with NATO’s peace support
missions in Bosnia Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM), Albania and Kosovo, and conducted numerous
seminars and workshops in Mauritania, Austria, Algeria, Slovakia
and Italy. He held numerous public affairs management and
leadership positions, most notably with the Media Centre for the
recovery operations for Swissair flight 111 which crashed off the
coast of Nova Scotia in 1999, with NATO led exercises in France,
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In 2001, Bulgaria awarded him the
Medal for Loyal Service, among its highest military awards, for his
work during a major NATO exercise that paved the way for Bulgaria
to join the Alliance. He is currently the Communications Advisor for
the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources.
 37

accepted mass media and nontraditional media to increase

the public impact and to raise the level of worldwide public
knowledge of their existence, ambitions and methods. They
progressed from accepting media coverage to planning and
incorporating news media coverage as a ‘force multiplier.’

Philip Heymann8 observed ‘…Most crimes do not involve – as

part of the plan for accomplishing their objectives—trying to
change the occupants of government positions, their actions,
or the basic structures and ideology of a nation….. But all
would agree that political violence is different from ordinary
crime, in that it is planned to force changes in government
actions, people, structure, or even ideology as a means to
whatever ends the perpetrators are seeking with whatever
motivations drive them towards those ends.’

The events of 11 September 2001, demonstrate how much

‘bang’ can be achieved for how little ‘buck.’ It cost the al
Qaeda terrorists approximately $300,000 to murder three
thousand people, destroy billions of dollars worth of
property (directly and indirectly), and shatter the confidence
of the world -- classic terrorist ambitions. New York’s World
Trade Centre was the principal target because of the public
attention the act would garner, and that New York is the
headquarters for the ‘Big Three’ news networks; ABC, CBS,
and NBC.

The success of terrorism anywhere breeds terrorism

everywhere, making media coverage of terrorist events a
major concern. Is there a relationship between terrorism and
the news media Examples of interaction between the news
media and the terrorist movements suggest that they share a
symbiotic relationship.

Richard Perl of the U.S. Congressional Research Service

suggests that what terrorists want from media are:
Publicity, usually free publicity, that a group could
normally not afford or are unable to buy. Any publicity
surrounding a terrorist act alerts the world that a
problem exists that cannot be ignored and must be

8
Author of ‘Terrorism and America – A Common Sense Strategy for A
Democratic Society’, Belfer Center for Science, 2000.
 38

addressed. From a terrorist perspective, an unedited

interview with a major figure is a treasured prize, such
as the May 1997.CNN interview with Saudi dissident,
terrorist recruiter and financier Osama bin Laden. For
news networks, access to a terrorist is a hot story and
is usually treated as such.

Favorable understanding for their cause, if not their

act. One may not agree with their act but this does not
preclude being sympathetic to their plight, their
circumstances, and their cause. Terrorists believe the
public ‘needs help’ to understand that their cause is
just and terrorist violence is the only course of action
available to them against the superior evil forces of
state and establishment. Good relationships with the
press are important here and they are often cultivated
and nurtured over a period of years.

In hostage situations, terrorists often monitor the media

to learn the identity, number and value of hostages, as
well as details about pending rescue attempts, and
details on the public exposure of their operation. They
seek details about any plans for military retaliation,
particularly where state sponsors are involved.

Terrorist organizations seek media coverage that causes

damage to their enemy. This is particularly noticeable when
the perpetrators of the act and the rationale for that act
remain unclear. They want the media to amplify panic, to
spread fear, to facilitate economic loss, to make populations
loose faith in their governments’ ability to protect them, and
to trigger government and popular overreaction to specific
incidents and the overall threat of terrorism.

Richard Perl also notes what the media wish when covering
terrorist incidents of issues.
Journalists generally want the freedom to cover an
issue without external restraint- whether it comes from
media owners, advertisers, editors, or from the
government.

Media want to be the first with the story. The scoop is

golden, and the philosophy is ‘old news is no news.’
 39

Pressure to transmit real time news instantly in today's

competitive high-tech communication environment is at
an all-time high.

The media want to make the story as timely and

dramatic as possible, often with interviews, if possible.
During the June 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijack crisis,
ABC aired extensive interviews with both hijackers
and hostages. (A photo was even staged of a pistol
aimed at the pilot's head.)

Most media members want to be professional and

accurate and not to give credence to disinformation,
however newsworthy it may seem. This may not be
easily done at times, especially when systematic
efforts to mislead them are undertaken by interested
parties.

They want to protect their ability to operate as securely

and freely as possible within society. In many
instances, this concern goes beyond protecting their
legal right to publish in a relatively unrestrained
fashion; it includes personal physical security.

They want protection from threat, harassment, or

violent assault during operations, and protection from
subsequent murder by terrorists in retaliation for
providing unfavorable coverage.

They want to protect society's right to know, and

construe this liberally to include popular and dramatic
coverage, e.g., airing emotional reactions of victims,
family members, witnesses, and ‘people on the street,’
as well as information withheld by law enforcement,
security, and other organs of government.

Media members often have no objection to playing a

constructive role in solving specific terrorist situations if
this can be done without excessive cost in terms of
story loss or compromise of values.

Bernard Lewis, one of America’s leading experts on the Arab

world, noted about the hijacking of a TWA airliner, that those
who plotted the incident ‘knew that they could count on the
 40

American press and television to provide them with unlimited

publicity and perhaps even some form of advocacy.’

Voluntary self-restraint is the general media’s preferred

policy on terrorism coverage, and the approach most
favoured by more responsible members of the generally
-accepted mass media organizations to avoid the dangers of
manipulation and exploitation by terrorist groups. In
addition, major media organizations have adopted guidelines
for their staff with the aim of preventing the more obvious
pitfalls. For example, CBS news guidelines commit the
organization to ‘thoughtful, conscientious care in restraint’ in
its coverage of terrorism:

avoiding giving ‘an excessive platform for the

terrorists/kidnapper;’

‘no live coverage of the terrorist/kidnapper’- thereby

avoiding interference with the authorities’
communications such as use of telephone lines;

using expert advisers and hostage situations to help

avoid questions or reports that might tend to
exacerbate the situation;

avoiding obstruction of the police but reporting to their

superiors media strictures that seem to be intended to
massage (i.e.: spin) or suppress the news; and,

attempting to achieve such coverage downsized to

length that the terrorist story does not unduly crowd
out other important news of the hour/day.

The way calculating terrorists define and calibrate the cost

and benefits of their actions may be different from the way
common criminals decide whether to rob, cheat, or bully.
Society’s response, therefore, must be based on pragmatic
considerations. Those who employ terrorism have their own
criteria for evaluating success and failure. When
governments, media and the public adopt the belief that
those who employ terrorism must be desperate and hopeless
to resort to this tactic, we commit a profound error by judging
them and their actions against our own criteria, and accord
them the rationalization that they are forced into this action
 41

as an absolute last resort. Their motivations may be far more

manipulative than desperate, and their rationale, more
preferred than a last resort. Using these concepts as
justification for the actions of terrorists, we are judging them
by our perceptions and our frames of reference – functions
that do not apply to activists from cultures so different from
our own.

The RAND Corporation’s Bruce Hoffman said:

‘In this new era of mass media in which the
‘information revolution’ has transformed
communications at a world level as a result of the
advances in transmission in real-time, their hurry to
fulfill the exigencies of time for an edition and the
consequent precipitated judgments and immediate
decisions can mean more opportunities of manipulation
for terrorism and more influence than before.’

Media and terrorism are linked in democratic societies.

Terrorism, by its very nature, is a psychological weapon that
depends on communicating a threat to the wider society.
This is why there is a relationship between media and
terrorism based on mutual need. Media generally tend to
reflect the underlying values of the society in which it
resides. Nevertheless, the media in an open society are in a
fiercely competitive market for their audiences, constantly
under pressure to be first with the news and to provide more
information, excitement, and entertainment than their rivals.
Success is reflected in increasing ratings, which then yield
higher profits. Hence, they are almost bound to respond to
terrorists’ ‘Propaganda of the Deed’ because it is
dramatically bad news. Thus, the media are in a kind of
symbiotic relationship with terrorism.

The news media is a powerful force during confrontations,

and whether we like it or not, the mass media has more
impact than most other agencies in how operations are
perceived by the outside world. Their coverage is instant and
can be world-wide if the circumstances warrant the attention
of viewers in other countries. And they will take sizeable
risks to get the story and get it out to their audiences.
 42

The lesson learned is that the media will be on-site instantly.

They have radio scanners and contacts throughout
communities that will tell them what is happening, where it
is happening and what has occurred so far, in the opinion of
some who would not qualify as ‘expert’ witnesses. Media
responses in crises situations like these begin by reporting
immediately by describing the scene, and initially their
stories are normally negative because there usually is no
one available to provide the government side of the story
when they arrive.

The first images are the ‘live eye.’ The cameras will scan the
immediate vicinity to communicate the environment at the
scene, and in their haste to begin their reports they will seek
witnesses, report fact and fantasy, and will seek linkages.
As they become established, reporters will interview non-
competitive reporters and they will find self-proclaimed
experts.

First of all, if none of the ‘good guys’ will speak to them,

then representatives of the ‘bad guys’ will, even if it is by
telephone from the Middle East. Also, it is critically important
that journalists understand what they are permitted to do
and not permitted to do. One glaring example of what has
been called media irresponsibility happened during the
hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner by Hizballah and its landing in
Larnaca, Cyprus in 1988. Security forces intended to launch
a rescue effort while the plane was on the ground, but the
media’s unrelenting coverage and live television images
made a surprise attack impossible. Cameras were equipped
with infra-red filters so that television watchers could see
everything, even at night.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the news media

and spectacular terrorist events. One of the most important
aims of a terrorist attack is to gain publicity for a particular
cause or even a particular aim, and the terrorist depends on
the media to inform the public. At the same time, and
contingent on the particular audiences monitoring these
events, the media endeavour to entertain shock, amuse, or
otherwise affect the emotions of the people who monitor the
news media – the readers, listeners and viewers.
 43

Competition between media organizations only heightens the

necessity to focus on their ability to affect emotions. Those
who commit and perpetrate terrorist acts understand this
and carefully script and choreograph to attract the coverage
they want. There is no way that western media can ignore
an event that has been fashioned specifically for their needs.

Television terrorists can no more do without the media than

the media can resist the terrorist event. The two create a
symbiotic relationship so that forces and pressure on one
provokes reactions by the other.

In response to these requirements, the U.S. Department of

Justice (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals) made a number of recommendations
based on the principles of minimum intrusiveness and
complete, non-inflammatory coverage. Some of the more
notable suggestions include:

When necessary, use a media pool to cover the

situation on behalf of all news agencies;

Self-imposed restrictions on lighting, use of cameras

and other special newsgathering technologies;

Limit direct interviews with hostage-takers during an

incident;

Avoid inquiries to reveal tactical information that would

be detrimental to police operations if revealed;

Delay the reporting of details which may inflame the

situation;

Where possible, avoid reporting that emphasizes the

sensational aspects of the incident;

Rely on official government spokespersons, when

available. Balance the coverage of self-serving terrorist
propaganda with contrasting information from official
sources.

Negotiations for the life of a victim are done in an

atmosphere of ghoulish public curiosity, apprehension and
even hysteria. To refuse the terrorists’ demands is
 44

tantamount to valuing the life of the victim below that of the

ransom or demand. The presence of publicity forces the
negotiating authorities to accept that refusal may have a
vastly magnified impact on the victim, the victim’s family and
on other potential victims. A government at war will
contemptuously reject an ultimatum in the knowledge that it
may cost thousands of lives in a city under siege. But that
same government may pay a huge political price to save an
individual in the face of an ultimatum from a group of three
or four clandestine terrorists. The best example is the
September 1972 Munich Olympics in which eight Black
September terrorists kidnapped and killed eleven Israeli
athletes. The terrorists had no serious expectations of the
Israeli or German governments, but millions of people
watched. While most were disgusted, if even a small
percentage were sympathetic this could have amounted to a
huge number of potential collaborators all over the world.

A form of symbiotic relationship exists between the news

media and spectacular terrorist incidents. One of the most
important aims of a terrorist attack is to gain publicity for a
particular cause, sometimes the only aim. The presumed
primary aim of news media is to inform. However, it is at
least as important in practice to entertain, shock, amuse or
otherwise affect the emotions of the audience, in particular,
of television. Competition between media organizations
seems to heighten the necessity to focus on the emotion
generating, as opposed to the purely informational aspects of
news reporting. Terrorists are aware of the phenomenon of
media coverage and often consciously script live action
spectaculars. Specifically, media coverage of terrorist events
are said to have some or all of the following effects:

It provides a platform for the expression of extremist

views which provoke violence and undermine the
authority of the state;

The reporting of spectacular terrorist incidents has a

contagion effect which increases the probability that
other groups or individuals will emulate the violence
being reported;
 45

Coverage of an ongoing incident hinders police

operations and may place the lives of hostages and
police in jeopardy;

Coverage of an ongoing incident puts inappropriate

pressure on the authorities which limits their powers
as decision-makers;

The large number of reporters at and extent of

coverage of a terrorist incident reinforces the terrorist’s
sense of power and particularly in the case of
deranged terrorists, may contribute significantly to
prolonging the incident or to an increase in its serious
consequences;

Related to the contagion effect is the claim that

excessive detail of both terrorist and counter-terrorist
operations supplies disaffected groups with tactical
and strategic information and technical knowledge
which make the resolution of future terrorist incidents
more difficult;

The competitive nature of newsgathering places an

undue emphasis on the sensational aspects of terrorist
events and makes entertainment of public violence
rather than performing a public duty to inform;

The instantaneous reporting of terrorist incidents and

the existence of some newsgathering principles (such
as telephone contact with terrorists in the course of an
incident) make reporters participants in, rather than
observers at, a terrorist event and diminish the ability
of the media to report objectively.

There are forces in the ‘news’ industry which sometimes

subtly and sometimes visibly affect the presentation of
‘facts’ so that some ideas appear good and others bad. The
concept of a free market of ideas is a romantic one that is at
odds with the modern realities of monopolistic group-
ownership and cross-media control of news outlets. ‘It is
absurd in the face of all the evidence that media are merely
passive observers passing on all information they receive to
allow the public to draw on informed conclusions.’
 46

There are no easy answers, or even difficult answers. There

are only complex choices. Media coverage can place lives in
jeopardy, can complicate negotiations, can limit police
options and restrict their alternatives in a difficult situation.
In the end, the news industry must be able to respond to
questions such as:

By what standards – other than losing out to the competition

and the inherent excitement of live pictures of, say, a man in
imminent danger of having his head blown off – do such
events qualify as significant in terms of the values
supposedly cherished by serious journalists?

CBS’ answer came in the form of news guidelines for

‘Coverage of Terrorists’. More specifically:

An essential component of the story is the demands of

the terrorist/kidnapper and we must report those
demands. But we should avoid providing an excessive
platform for the terrorist/kidnapper. Thus, unless such
demands are succinctly stated and free of rhetoric and
propaganda, it may be better to paraphrase the
demands instead of presenting them directly through
the voice of the terrorist/kidnapper.

Except in the most compelling circumstances, and then

only with the approval of the President of CBS News or
in his absence, the Senior Vice President of News,
there should be no live coverage of the
terrorist/kidnapper since we may fall into the trap of
providing an unedited platform for him. (This does not
limit live on the spot reporting by CBS reporters, but
care should be exercised to assure restraint and
context)

News personnel should be mindful of the probable

need by the authorities who are dealing with the
terrorist for communication by telephone and hence
should endeavour to ascertain, wherever feasible,
whether our own use of such lines would be likely to
interfere with the authorities’ communications.
 47

Responsible CBS News representatives should

endeavour to contact experts dealing with the hostage
situation to determine whether they have any guidance
on such questions as phraseology to be avoided, what
kinds of questions or reports might tend to exacerbate
the situation, etc. Any such recommendations by
established authorities on the scene should be
carefully considered as guidance (but not as
instruction) by CBS News personnel.

Local authorities should also be given the name or

names of CBS personnel whom they can contact
should they have further guidance or wish to deal with
such delicate questions as a newsman’s call to the
terrorists or other matters which might interfere with
authorities dealing with the terrorists.

Guidelines affecting our coverage of civil disturbances

are also applicable here, especially those which relate
to avoiding the use of inflammatory catchwords or
phrases, the reporting of rumours, etc. As in the case
of policy dealing with civil disturbances, in dealing
with a hostage story reporters should obey all police
instructions but report immediately to their superiors
any such instructions that seem to be intended to
manage or suppress the news.

Coverage of this kind of story should be in such overall

balance as to length, that it does not unduly crowd out other
important news of the hour/day. A second and more easily
substantiated charge is that some newsgathering practices
hinder the effective management of terrorist incidents,
particularly those involving hostage taking. There have been
situations in which media have conducted direct telephone
interviews with hostagetakers, and one situation in Ottawa
in the late 1970s, a local television team was showing live
the hostage-taking at the Turkish ambassador’s residence,
and broadcast the ambassador lying beneath a window.
Had the terrorists been watching television they would have
been able to carry out their primary mission of
assassination.
 48

In another incident in the mid-1980s, a national news

reporter entered Toronto International Airport’s security area
through an exit passing in front of a security guard, and
then was shown on an aircraft placing a starter pistol (used
to start races, and does not fire a projectile) and simulated
explosives in the seat pocket of this airline seat. He was
charged by the RCMP.

In both cases, authorities should have considered the

possibility of bringing charges of criminal mischief and/or
negligence against these media personnel.

When journalists invoke the privilege and authority that goes

with their advantaged positions, they must also exercise a
commensurate level of responsibility and accountability.

Concurrently, public and police officials must also take steps

to hold news personnel accountable when they exercise their
prerogatives irresponsibly. To do otherwise could result in
losing control of a situation with the potential of dire
consequences.

31. Respondent 1, the Ministry of Information And Broadcasting,

has published a grand and ambitious set of guidelines titled
“Self Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector
2008”. Excerpts from the same are presented below to
contrast the actual conduct of media with that stated below:

The Self Regulation Guidelines were enacted for the

following reasons:

A need has been felt to regulate the content going into public
domain to ensure conformity with acceptable contemporary
community standards and to protect the vulnerable sections
from harmful and undesirable content on TV.

These Self Regulation Guidelines (Guidelines) set out

principles, guidelines and ethical practices, which shall
guide the Broadcasting Service Provider (BSP) in offering
their programming services in India so as to conform to the
Certification Rules prescribed under the Cable Television
 49

Networks (regulations) Act 1995, irrespective of the

medium/platform used for broadcasting of the programme.

These Guidelines have been drafted to introduce greater

specificity and detail with a view to facilitate self regulation
by the broadcasting industry and minimize scope for
subjective decision by regulatory authorities or the
broadcasting service providers. The basic underlying
principle of these Guidelines is that the responsibility of
complying with the provisions of the Certification Rules vests
with the BSP.

As the Guidelines are based on self-regulation, these set out

the factors, which should be taken into account by the BSP
when forming a view about the acceptability of any
programme.

The BSP has to adhere to the Certification Rules under the

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which are
in addition and not in derogation of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act 1940, the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
Use) Act, 1950, the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950, the Drugs and
Magic Remedies (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1954, the
Prevention of Food & Adulteration Act, 1954, the Prize
Competitions Act, 1995, the Indecent Representation of
Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986, the Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957, The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ….., The Cigarette and other
Tobacco Products Act 2003, the Cinematograph Act, 1952,
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and such other existing
or new statutes, and Rules/Regulations/Guidelines framed
thereunder from time, relating to exhibition of films or
broadcasting of programmes and advertisements.

Principles
The Self – Regulation guidelines were made on the following
principles:

These Guidelines are intended to guide the BSP and are

based on enduring principles; that all programming should
not mislead, cause offence, or lead to harm, particularly to
the vulnerable.
 50

This section should be read in conjunction with Certification

Rules. Basic principles of these Guidelines are the following:

Programmes should always be scheduled with an

awareness of the likely audience in mind. Great care
and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking
or offending the audience.

Each BSP shall categorize each of their programs

based on its theme, subject-matter treatment, language
and audio visuals presentation and slot it accordingly.
The BSP will ensure that all programmes broadcast
are in accordance with scheduling as per Certification
Rules.

The BSP should take reasonable steps to protect

minors. The BSP should be vigilant in gaining an
understanding of how material shown on television
could impact the development of minors. Minors cover
a wide age group and levels of maturity. It is therefore
necessary for the BSP to exercise judgment on the
capacity of minors in different age groups in coping
with the depiction and treatment of material, which
may not be suitable for them.

By and large, the Certification Rules shall uniformly

apply to all types of BSPs. However, for News and
Current affairs (N & C A) programming, it is desirable
that BSPs edit the content as well as carry prominent
warnings and suitably mask any portions of news or
current affairs scenes considered unsuitable for
viewing in accordance with the certification norms for
scheduling them for broadcast in its News bulletins
throughout the day.

Television news has greater reach and impact than

other media. It is instantly available in millions of
homes to both the discerning as well as the non –
discerning audiences. With ever increasing number of
round the clock news channels and the intense
competition among them for the viewership as well as
changing priorities as to what constitute news, news
and current affairs contents of television call for some
 51

discipline with specific guidelines. We need to be

aware that a damage or injustice resulting from news
and current affairs contents of television cannot be
undone post facto. Hence, there is a need for having
separate and transparent guidelines for news
programming that need to be followed scrupulously by
all.

Self – Regulation Mechanism: The guidelines are essentially

enforced through a system of self – regulation which works
through two-tiers. The first level of self – regulation happens
at the BSP level and the second happens at the industry
level.

First tier of self-regulation – At the BSP level

It shall be the individual responsibility of each BSP to ensure
compliance with the Certification Rules prescribed under the
Cable Television Network (regulation) Act 1995 and the
Rules made there under, the principles and all relevant
clarification, guidelines and interpretations, standards and
norms prescribed by the Central Government or the BRAI.

Every BSP should have its own internal mechanism to

comply with the Certification Rules for which it may appoint
one or more Content Auditors of requisite qualification and
experience Head (Standard & Practices) of a BSP may also
be treated as Content Auditor for the purposes of this
Regulation. Each BSP shall provide details of its Content
Auditor/s on its own website and channel for information of
the public. This information will also be notified to the
Ministry of I&B and BRAI who will post the same on their
respective websites also. This person/s shall also be the
contact point for any feedback or complaint etc. from the
public regarding content violations.

Any BSP may broadcast live/interactive

programs/advertisements in which the public or invited
guests may participate, whose gestures or utterances may
not be possible to predict and which may violate the
Certification Rules. In all such cases, the Chief Editor of the
BSP should satisfy himself that adequate briefing is given to
the participants about the certification norms and indemnify
 52

the BSP against any deliberate violations by the

guests/participants. It would be treated as sufficient
compliance of the Certification Rules if the anchor at the end
of the show sums up the proceedings giving a balanced view
of the discussion and states that the views expressed by the
participants were their own.

Subject Matter Treatment (Crime and Violence):

While the overall theme, storyline and characterization may
justify one or more specific scenes of crime or violence, the
subject-matter treatment of such content under all categories
shall not:

Endanger human lives or prejudice the success of

attempts to deal with a hijack or “hostage” or
kidnapping crisis or a law & order situation or any
other security-related or criminal investigation.

Have a traumatic, desensitizing or dehumanizing effect

that could lead to psychological disorders or unsocial
attitudes or behavior, particularly among minors.

Encourage emulation of criminal or violent behavior.

Provide opportunities to copy the modus operandii of

criminals and thereby encourage commission of any
offences or crimes.

Subject Matter Treatment: NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS (N

& CA) PROGRAMMING

Broadcasters shall observe general community standards of

decency and civility in news content and scheduling, taking
particular care to protect the interest and sensitivities of
children and general family viewing. Great care and
sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking, offending
or misleading the audience.

News should be well balanced and BSP shall endeavour

that news is comprehensive, factual material is presented
accurately and all viewpoints represented fairly.
Commentary and analysis shall be clearly distinguished in
the news and actual news should precede the commentary
and analysis.
 53

News should not jeopardize the security of the nation and

care should be taken that news broadcasts are in the
interest of the nation. All plans for a broadcast which
explores and exposes the views of people who use or
advocate violence for the achievement of political ends must
be considered carefully by senior editorial/ management
before any arrangements for broadcasting are made.

News should not jeopardize any ongoing criminal

investigation and should exercise due care in such cases.

BSP’s should avoid a trial by media since “a man is innocent

till proven guilty by law”. In such cases care should be taken
to present both sides of the story and present a balanced
view.

No material should be presented in any manner that creates

public panic and unnecessary alarm. BSP has to ensure that
nothing is broadcast which is likely to encourage or incite
viewers to crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public
feeling.

News covering scenes of crime, violence, national tragedy

and obscurantist supernatural practices should be dealt with
utmost objectivity and sensitivity and not with a view to
trivialize, sensationalize or glorify them.

Infringement of privacy in a news based/related programme

is a sensitive issue. There have been a slew of programmes
where privacy of individuals appears to have been breached
in public interest, however public opinion has been divided
on this. Therefore, this calls for exercise of great degree of
responsibility on part of the BSP, while telecasting any such
programs, as may be breaching privacy of individuals.
Failure to follow the tenets given below will constitute a
breach of this Chapter of the Code resulting in an
unwarranted infringement of privacy.

Senior editorial control must be exercised for selecting

material in issues relating to privacy and intrusion into
public affairs.
 54

Any infringement of privacy in news based/related

programmes, or in connection with obtaining material
included in such programmes, must be “warranted”.

Any infringement of privacy in the making of a news

based/related programme should be with the person’s
and/or organization’s consent or be otherwise “warranted”.

If an individual or organization’s privacy is being infringed,

and they ask that the filming, recording, or live broadcast be
stopped, the BSP should do so, unless it is warranted to
continue.

Scenes of human suffering and distress are often an integral

part of any report of the effects of natural disaster, accident
or human violence, and may be a proper subject for actuality
rather than indirect reporting. But before presenting such
scenes, broadcasters must balance the wish to serve the
needs of truth and the desire for compassion against the risk
of sensationalism and the possibility of unwarranted
invasion of privacy. In particular, while reporting natural or
manmade calamities, human violence and deaths, the
feelings and sensitivities of grieving relatives or the injured
must be respected and interviews avoided unless consent
has been obtained.

Door stepping for news/news based programmes should not

take place unless a request for an interview has been
refused or it has not been possible to request an interview,
or there is good reason to believe that an investigation will
be frustrated if the subject is approached openly, and it is
warranted to doorstep.

Door stepping is the filming or recording of an interview or

attempted interview with someone, or announcing that a call
is being filmed or recorded for broadcast purposes, without
any prior warning. It does not, however, include vox-pops
(sampling the views of random members of the public).

While reporting violent events, natural calamities and

accidents, appropriate regard must be paid to the feelings of
relatives and viewers and inclusion of images of dead or
seriously wounded people or gruesome and gory scenes,
 55

which may seriously distress or offend substantial number

of viewers, should not be included in the telecast. The
feelings and sensitivities of grieving relatives or the injured
must be respected and interviews avoided.

32.The above guidelines, it is respectfully submitted, have

become endearing material for amusement in the hands of
media critics.

33. Under circumstances such as these, the petitioner, as a

representative of the people of this country is starved of an
efficacious remedy to safeguard against the breach of public
peace by Media Respondents 3 to 18 and is further starved of
any remedy to compel Government Respondents 1 and 2 to
discharge their bounden duty to restrain Media Respondents
3 to 18 from committing a breach of public peace.

34. The Petitioner submits that he has not approached this

Hon’ble Court and that he has not filed any other petition
before any other Court below seeking the same or similar
relief as prayed for in the instant petition.

35.The Petitioner approaches this Hon’ble Court, amongst

others, on the following:

GROUNDS

I. Respondent 1 is vested with the legal authority to

effectively regulate the media in the interests of integrity of
India and for safeguarding against breach of public peace.
The Television media has failed to observe any ‘ethical
standard’ or ‘professional standard’ of restraint in the
matter of reporting acts of terror. Respondents 1 and 2
 56

have breached their duty to the public who are burdened

with unrestrained television coverage on acts of terror by
Respondents 3 to 18. A Writ of Mandamus therefore lies to
compel Respondents 1 and 2 to discharge their duty to
restrain Respondents 3 to 18 from breaching public peace.

II. Our Country is losing the war on terror in myriad ways.

Acts of terror have increased and have gotten bigger and
bolder and have evaded Governmental containment. It has
become absolutely essential to eliminate every potent
support to acts of terror. As demonstrated elsewhere in the
petition, acts of terror and media coverage of the same
share a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with one another. In view,
thereof, restraint upon the media has become absolutely
essential to contain the escalating insecurity among the
people of this country.

III. The media does not possess any privilege in the matter of
establishing communication or a dialogue with suspected
or apprehended terrorists. Neither are they immune from
restraint in the matter of conveying messages from the
terrorists to their viewers in India. When such is the case,
the omission of Respondents 1 and 2 to restrain
Respondents 3 to 18 from disseminating messages and
statements from the terrorists to their viewers in India is
clearly actionable before a Court of Law competent to
direct a public body to discharge its legal duty to the
public. Consequently, this petition properly lies to this
Hon’ble Court

IV. Respondents 3 to 18 do not discharge any valuable

function when they act to facilitate communication
 57

between terrorists and their viewers. The public do not

possess, as a matter of law any uninhibited right to be
present at a scene of crime. While the media has a
responsibility to report acts on terror, they also share a
commensurate burden of not spreading or amplifying
panic. However, given the actual increase in the frequency
and magnitude of terror acts, for the media to convey
messages and statements from suspected terrorists
amounts to an unintended collaboration with the
terrorists, a danger that our country can no longer afford.

V. While the public possess a choice to watch a channel of

their choice and to exclude channels that do not meet their
expectations, such a choice is rendered futile by the fact
that competitive pressure upon the media has driven every
channel to exploit every commercial opportunity presented
by a ‘terror act’. Under such circumstances, no meaningful
alternative is available to a viewer other than to helplessly
witness a terror act magnified and amplified in the hands
of the unrestrained media. Immediate and effective
regulation is therefore, not merely desirable but is
absolutely essential. But the need for such regulation and
implementation of published regulation has been
overlooked by Respondents 1 and 2 despite massive
escalation in the frequency and intensity of terror strikes
upon the country.

VI. The unrelenting coverage by Respondents 3 – 18 of future

terrorist acts in the same manner witnessed so far is
bound to offer a convenient platform for the dissemination
of extremist views by the terrorists and a consistent supply
 58

of such extremist views on the air waves is bound to

legitimize violence and is further bound to undermine the
authority of the Government. Organised societies do not
endure unlimited assaults and they eventually break down
at some point. The petitioner merely seeks that
Respondents 3 to 18 do not disseminate messages from
suspected terrorists without the interface of our
Government.

VII. The reporting of terrorist strikes by Respondents 3 – 18 in

the context of information circulated by the terrorists
through these channels is bound to have a contagious
effect upon people prone to violent tendencies. The
dramatization and spectacular portrayal of such acts by
Respondents 3 – 18 further increases the probability that
other groups or individuals will emulate the violence being
reported. The unrestrained style of reporting terrorist
incidents by Respondents 3 – 18 vicariously contributes to
the terrorists’ sense of accomplishment and runs the risk
of significantly prolonging the consequences. To
disseminate terrorists’ messages in such a context is to
violate public peace.

VIII. The excessive detail and drama accompanying television

reports on terror strikes coupled with the unrelenting
disclosure of Police strategies hinders anti–terror
operations and puts the lives of hostages at risk. The
people of this country are starved of a credible assurance
that terrorists attacks in future will not present
unmanageable risks to police personnel who already run
the risk of unchecked media intrusion and interference
 59

while on a ‘call of duty’. For the media to continue

disseminating terrorists’ messages in such a context is to
undermine the authority of our Government and of the
Police.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner humbly seeks

that this Hon’ble Court be graciously be pleased to:

a) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other

nature or description or an order or a direction upon
Respondents 1 and 2 to restrain Respondents 3 to 18
from facilitating or relaying communication from
suspected or apprehended terrorists to their viewers
in India forthwith unless Respondent 1 or 2 consent-
in-advance to such relaying of communication;

b) pass any other order or direction to safeguard public

peace against erosion by the business of
Respondents 3 to 18 during ‘acts of terror’ upon
Indian soil or interests;

c) Issue any other order or direction in the interest of

justice, Sovereignty and integrity of our nation as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Drawn By: K.V.Dhananjay

Advocate
Drawn on : 11-Dec-2008

Filed on : 12-Dec-2008