Media industry demands redrafting the Communication Convergence Bill

The regulator will also decide on the tariffs, manage frequency spectrum, lay down advertising codes, technical and commercial standards for services, adjudicate and enforce penalties on violation of provisions through an adjudicating officer, monitor the system for anti-national activities and intercept communication when required and take over communication facilities in times of emergencies such as war or national calamity.

The Bill when passed by the Parliament will repeal earlier legislations like: The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933; Telegraph Wire Unlawful Possession Act, 1950; Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

Mr. Ram says the Bill is silent on various important issues like cross media holdings and various terms are left open and undefined. Recalling the failed attempts of the government to enact the Broadcast Bill earlier, Mr. Ram is of the view that Communication Convergence Bill is an attempt to reintroduce Broadcast Bill with much wider implications under a different name.

Earlier, in his pre-recorded inaugural address Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan, union minister of communications, terming the proposed legislation as a landmark attempt said, "The explosion in technology and convergence is an opportunity and a challenge. We have to ensure that a modern and effective communication infrastructure is established, taking into account the convergence of information technology, media, telecom and consumer electronics."

He said in order to ensure that these services are made available at an affordable cost to all uncovered areas and side by side taking into account the security of the nation, the government has proposed to bring a suitable legislation and a draft Communication Convergence Bill has been outlined.

Concurring with Mr. Ram, noted writer Mr. Malan, Sun TV, expressed fears that provisions relating to maintaining public order, Indian culture, friendly relations with a foreign country and preventing portrayal of violence are in fact methods of implementing censorship and infringing the Constitution guaranteed freedom of expression and speech.

Comparing Press Council with the proposed Communication Commission of India he said, members of the Press Council are drawn mainly amongst working journalists, owners of newspapers, etc. On the other hand, when the government appoints members of Communication Commission, it is wholly dependent on the government for funds.

According to him, the Bill in fact promotes monopoly of state-owned television channel, Doordharshan, when it comes to telecasting important events. "The Bill inspired by the American model in fact brings hegemony into the media. It is better for the government to regulate the technology and not the content," he added.

Crossing swords with them was Mr. T. G. Nallamuthu, additional principal information officer, Press Information Bureau, Government of India. He said there should be some regulation to monitor content. "The government will be blamed at a later stage if something untoward happens for not regulating the content." A member from the audience, who said newspapers always censored/regulated content by its editorial policies, supported him.

Former promoter of Asianet channel and chairman of Asian Media Institute, Mr. Sashi Kumar Menon called for the adoption of the recommendations of the Nariman Committee, formed to chalk out the constitution of a Communication Commission.

Retired bureaucrat Mr. B. S. Raghavan criticised the move to make the cabinet secretary as the chairman of the proposed Spectrum Management Committee. "Only a technically qualified professional should be appointed for the post," he argued.

Giving a lawyer’s perspective about the Communication Convergence Bill, Mr. P. S. Surana, partner, Surana & Surana, citing the government’s habit of sleeping over critical appointments to Debts Recovery Tribunals and Consumer Forums, advocated for an independent body to appoint members of Communication Commission. "Such appointments should be made in a transparent manner," he remarked.

He also warned about the loopholes in the Bill, which if enacted, would be challenged in High Court. For instance, Section 50 of the Bill provides for chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost accountants or legal practitioners or an officer of the appellant to appear before the Appellate Tribunal.

Mr. Surana said, "Firstly, lawyers may challenge this provision in the High Court as to how other professionals could represent before a Tribunal. Secondly, others like engineers, architects and other professionals too can challenge the provision as discriminatory."

The best way is to say that the appellant or his power of attorney agent can present his case before the Tribunal, Mr. Surana pointed out. He also called for defining the duties and powers of secretary general/chief executive officer of the Communication Commission.

"There should be a specific provision empowering the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal to punish for contempt of itself or for violation of its orders. Unless there are specific powers, the government or other authorities may not implement the order and the Commission/Tribunal will be toothless," he opined.

He also called for specific provisions in the Bill, excluding the right of the High Court hearing any cases about the Communication Commission/Tribunal or their orders, thereby avoiding judicial delays.

On the issue of settlement of disputes by the Tribunal within 90 days as prescribed in the Bill, Mr. Surana suggested on fixing sub-time limits for various activities like numbering of appeal, rectifying errors, allowing not more than two adjournments of maximum 15 days and pronouncement of judgment within 15 days of hearing the appeal.