Rajasthan High Court issues notice in writ against broadcast of TV serial “Jodha Akbar”; Petition says TV regulator lacks statutory backing

Barely two months after the Delhi High Court over turned the broadcasting ban on Comedy Central, questions about how TV-content ought to be regulated have found their way before the Courts once again. On July 5, 2013 the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court issued notice in a petition that inter alia questions the effectiveness of the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council..The petition, filed by a former Vice Chancellor of Jai Narayan Vyas University, Dr. LS Rathore seeks a stay on the broadcast of the TV serial, “Jodha Akbar” on the grounds that the contents of the show are a “distorted presentation” of historical figures and negatively impacts the sentiments of a large section of the population of Rajasthan..Apart from the questions on the veracity of the contents of the TV show (for instance Dr. Rathore argues that Jodha Bai was never married to Akbar as claimed in the TV show), the petition also questions the standing of the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC). The BCCC was established by the Indian Broadcasters Federation (IBF) in 2011, to “look into viewers’ complaints about television content”. The BCCC was also one of the bodies referred to in the Comedy Central dispute before the Delhi High Court..Dr. Rathore argues that both the BCCC as well as the IBF lack any “statutory backing” since they were not constituted as per the parent legislation, namely the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act of 1995 (the Act) and the Cable Television Network Rules of 1994 (the 1994 Rules). The Cable Television Act says that all content must conform with the provisions of the 1994 Rules; the 1994 Rules in turn states that:.Rule 6. Programme Code.-(1) No programme should be carried in the cable service which-(a) offends against good taste or decency;…(d) contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths;.It is Dr. Rathore’s argument that it is the government alone that can deal with violations of the 1994 Rules and not a self-regulatory mechanism such as the BCCC. In fact, the petition also states that the BCCC has “usurped the powers of the State” granted under Act and the 1994 Rules..The Respondents in the matter include the Union of India, Balaji Telefims, Ekta Kapoor the IBF as well as the BCCC with the Court granting them four weeks to file their replies. The Petitioner was represented by Advocate PS Rathore..Image taken from here.