Warning - Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

No. 804/1 51/2014-BG-lll
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
.A' WING. SHASTRI BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI - 11OOO1
Dated the 12th MaY, 2015
WARNING
Whereas it had been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
that Sathiyam TV channeitelecast programmes 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM' and
'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' on 9.12.2014 at 6.30 am and 8.31 am.
Whereas both the programmes appeared to violate certain provisions of the Programme
Code orescribed under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules
framed thereunder, the details of which are as under:
(l)Telecast of 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM' on 9-12.2014 at 6-30 a.m.
Sathiyam TV channel broadcast a talk on Bible by a preacher of the Christian faith
at 6-30 a.m. On 9.12.2014, towards the end of the talk, the preacher, while
administering prayer to the followers mentioned one line several times in Tamil
which is re-produced as under:
"lnde Pollada Manisharai Inda Ulagathilindre Tuke Appa Inde Pollada Manisharai
avan Pillaigal Oode Tuke Appa." The meaning of these lines implies that : "Oh,
lord! Remove this satanic person from this world!l Oh lordl Remove this person
along with his sons (supporters) away from me." This part of the reference was
from the Time Code 06.48 onwards for about three minutes.
The programme 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM', apparently made reference to
a 'dreadful man' as a threat to Christianity by one preacher of Christian faith. Such
statements being broadcast from a religious preacher appeared to be targeting a
political leader and could potentially give rise to a communally sensitive situation
and incite the public to violent tendencies which would be conducive to law and
order situation. Altogether, this appeared to violate Rule 6(1) (c ), (d), (e) & (i) of
the Programme Code.
(ll)Telecast of 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' on 9.12.2014 at 8:31 a.m.
The channel telecast a programme 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' which is
basically a discussion on the news published in various newspapers in the state.
Senior journalist who participated in the discussion made some statements against
the Prime Minister.
Anchor : MDMK breaks alliance with BJP was one of the major news yesterday.
Senior journalist: We have to agree the fact that Modi is a good speaker why
because he is capable of making the people believe in false statement. He started
his campaign in such a way before the Lok Sabha elections and,that islhe reason
/ v\_LLJlai,,,
(+1^=r
i.{r.,Til /''
(NEETt S/'\RI<AR)
Ftrr6/Dire cto t
\rr1 qqr{ r c_"qF.!r
Mln. of InformE!ion & .Br.-:d.casting
r{l=l ljldr{, :i{ lia. :l
Covl. of Inil::, l.srtr O6l:i
LTq:n
the problems
why vaiko believed in him thinking that he would find a solution to all
with BJP" '
in tlre state and it was Vaiko who t6ok the initiative to make an alliance
Anchor : Prime Minister's rally at samba, J&K has been talked about largely in
social media.
politics you
senior journalist: I had told the same view earlier also. To succeed in
make
need to have the ability to convert a false statement in to true and above all
the people believe the statement ... . .
Anchor': Ghulam Nabi Azad's statement that the location where PM's rally was
scheduled has a capacity of 4500 - 5000 but only 2500 people actually took part
in the rally. There is no vision glass fashioned in the entire world which can
magnify a crowd of 2500 people to one lakh people.
senior' journalist: In Tamil Nadu, leaders bring people along with them as
addressees to show immense strength in the rally. This tradition was less in the
North. Now Modi's tricks are that before he comes to address a rally, viewers are
They also have the media who actually
made available at the
convert the original numbers into wrong ones.
location
Thus, in the programme'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' while discussing the
political situation in Tamil Nadu in the backdrop of the severance of alliance
between MDMK and BJP, one senior journalist participating in the News Analysis
alleged that Prime Minister engineered crowds at his rallies and also influenced
the media to project an incorrect picture as true. He accused the P.M. of using his
oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements. The statements
appeared to defame a person without any substantiation. lt appeared to malign
and slander the Prime Minister which was repugnant to the esteemed office that he
holds and therefore, appeared to violate Rule 6(1Xd) & (i) of the Programme
Code.
Whereas the aforesaid Programmes appeared to violate the following provisions of the
Programme Code contained in aforesaid Rule 6:
Rule 6(1) (c) No programme should be carried in the cable service which contains attack
on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which
promote communal attitudes;
Rule 6(1) (d) No programme should be carried in the cable service which contains
anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half
truths;
Rule 6(1) (e) No programme should be carried in the cable service which is likely to
encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order
or which promote-anti-national attitudes;
Rule 6(1) (i) No programme should be carried in the cable service which criticizes,
maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public
and moral life of the country;
to
basic conditions/obligations
of
permission/approval for
Uplinking/Downlinking of a news and current affairs TV Channel in India whereby
permission to downlink Sathiyam TV Channel has been granted, the channel was bound
to follow the Programme Code and Advertising Code prescribed under the
aforementioned AcURules; and in the event of failure to comply with any of the terms and
conditions, permission/approval granted was liable to be suspended/ cancelled;
Whereas, according
tvtgLit2-/ eltS
(;irE; r:,_.i-., r<i
(NEETt saRK-AR)
Flrre
,zo lre
cto,
q€r qc1 tn'l-{!! Tafdq
Mtn. ot Inform6tion &
qifd (.{6rr, T€-A@actcs.rng
H
covr. or lnd. :, l,sv. Octhi
sathiyam
whereas a snow cause notice (scN) was issued on 16.12.2014 calling upon
to why
as
TV channel to show cause within 15 days from receipt of this communication
and
action as per the provisions of Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines,, the terms
Act
cable
the
20
of
conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of section
should not be taken against it;
whereas, responding to the SCN, Sathiyam TV channel, vide letter dated 17.122014'
as far
submitted thai there is a false and baseless allegation without any substantiation;
as Ungal Aseervatha Neram, the segment that is quoted in the scN contains an
iu.ngltirt pr"ying to God for persons who are weak, sick and persons who are subjected
to unnecessary oppresston by persons inimical towards them and it was a prayer for
protecting them from such oppression. The channel stated that it was a general prayer
ior p"rson. in a depressed mood due to such things in life; about somebody praying to
God for social harmony and prosperity and protection of an individual, and further' they
stated that even taking the programme in entirety there was absolutely no mention against
the Hon'ble and respected Prime Minister either in person or the office that he holds. The
channel stated in their reply that if any such interpretation was being advised to the
Ministry, it could only be a sinuous attempt to unnecessarily imagine something and drag
him into an ill-advised controversy aimed at tarnishing the good office that he holds and
alienating him from sections of the society. With regard to "Paarthathum Padithathum",
the channel explained that the programme was about discussions on interpretations of
news and stories in that day's editions of popular newspapers and the persons on the
screen were discussing the fragmentation of a political alliance in the state of Tamil Nadu
and about the reference made by Mr. Gulam Nabi Azad about the PM's public meeting in
Kashmir. The channel clarified that the quoted reference to the Prime Minister was in fact
a metaphorical acclamation of his communication skills as a politician. The channel failed
to see how a metaphorical compliment could qualify (as violation) under sections of the
Code quoted in the SCN; they opined that the entire episode appeared to be an attempt
to drive a wedge between the Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the fourth pillar of
an established and thriving democracy; they also fear this to be an ill-advised attempt to
project as if they intended to disrupt social and religious harmony by dragging the highest
levels of their governance, into a controversy that they certainly did not deserve; they
clarified that they were one of the very few vernacular television channels that did not
have a political leaning and one of the fewer still, when it came to credible and unbiased
news dissemination. The channel requested the Ministry to treat the matter as closed
and refrain from engaging whoever ill-advised it thus and also stated that in the event any
further explanation or clarification was required from their side apart from this reply, they
were prepared to appear in person and clarify their side;
Whereas, in keeping with the principles of Natural Justice the channel was granted an
opportunity for a personal hearing to present their case before IMC on 1 3.01 .2015;
Whereas Sathiyam TV channel sent an email dated 9.1.2015 requesting for adjournment
of personal hearing. They submitted that their General Manager who was dealing with
the subject matter was on sick leave and due to ensuing Pongal festival in Tamilnadu,
they were unable to appear for personal hearing. They requested that a next date may
be given or that the personal hearing may be fixed on the next date of the IMC meeting;
. " l-..Al
vvL!-):__,..
l2'l> l,)
(;'r.,i r': .'-i'')
(NEETI SARKAR)
ftlYF/D
ire cto r
qnir gctl qqr{q qardq
f
i,n. of Inrormatron A.APadca3ting
qri_t ti,-,B'r{. _E IqGn
Govi, cf Inil:, fls'./ Dclhi
on
whereas, since the channel expressed its helplessness to attend the hearing
to appear
i S.Of .ZOi S, the IMC noted that the channel may be given another opportunity
In view of submission made bySathiyam TV channel, the IMC deferred
the matter to the next date;
t- in"I""iing.
IMC on
whereas the channel was granted an opportunity for personal hearing before the
The
lMC.
the
before
06.02.2015. This time re[resentatives of the channel appeared
previewed
IMC went through the material on record, written reply of the channel and also
the CD recording of both of the said programmes;
whereas with respect to the programme 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM" the IMC
inquired of the repiesentatives of the channel whether this programme was a reading of
a story from the Bible or the preacher was interpreting it in his ow1 w91ds. The
reores'entatives clarified that the preacher was interpreting this story from the Bible. They
further stated that the words "lnde Pollada Manisharai Inda Ulagathilindre Tuke Appa
Inde Pollada Manisharai avan Pillaigal Oode Tuke Appa" were not exactly used in the
programme and it had also not been literally translated. They clarified that the preacher
wal simply referring to the children who were oppressed and were in need of upliftment
and the'reference was to Daniel, being oppressed by superiors and that is straight from
the Bible. The representative also stated that they did not mean to refer to any political
leader in the programme. Nor did they intend to attack any community;
Whereas, with regard to the programme 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM" the
representatives of the channel stated that the programme was based on news reports
published in various newspapers in the state in the context of J&K Assembly elections.
Senior journalist who participated in the discussion also made some comments had
stated that the P.M. used his oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements.
The representatives stated that the journalist had the right to freedom of expression under
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and the programme was conducted keeping this
view in mind. They also stated that no objective standards were employed bythe Ministry
as to how the language used was likely to be derogatory to any person;
Whereas, the representatives of the channel also submitted a representation dated
6.2.2015 in which it was indicated that the programme titled 'Ungal Aseervatha Neram',
which translated to, "Your Blessing Time". lt was an early morning broadcast containing
a prayer and ran for a period of half an hour from 6.30 am till 7.00 am. As per the channel,
the said prayer did not make any political references or any reference to any individual;
the translation relied upon was inaccurate and was in total contradiction to the message
and meaning conveyed in the prayer made by the person; it was blatantly misconstrued
and misunderstood. The channel stated that the SCN contained several vague
allegations with respect to the broadcast; that the allegations were factually inaccurate
for which reference should first be had to the correct transcript and that the relevant
portion which had been quoted in the SCN was inaccurate. They opined thatthe alleged
phrase mentioned in the SCN was never used in the broadcast and even otheMise, a
stray sentence, phrase or word could not be taken in consideration. They stated that the
entire theme and context of the broadcast had to be examined holistically. lt was further
mentioned in the representation that the second programme which was in issue, was
titled "Paarthathum Padithathum" which translated to, "What you saw, what you read".
As per the channel, it was a morning broadcast containing comments and opinions on
the basis of newspaper reports of that day. In this programme, the channel stated that a
/l4JrL
1_tltrS
("i in l:::r,-;;.*l ' -
(NEE-rt s^'Ri-<AE)
FarElJ
ltin.
,
,e c. o r
qq=;n \qq e!{rirl q.r-,.nq
of Intormari(_rr .1 6r.a,r.astina
,,. !.r
J,
c.!:. .', t..
,,
!.....t
discussed newspaper reports and offered analysis on it for a
hour from 8.30 am till 9.00 am. As per the channel, the discussion in the
n"ft
"n with reference to a statement made by a politician from J&K during the
piog;rr" was
and the
miOit of State Elections and these remarks were widely reported in the national
io""f pr"". and electronic media and hence, were in the public domain The channel
submitted that till date, no action for defamation had been initiated to their knowledge
tfri" statemeni. Further they opined that the statements which had been
"g.i."i
c;mplained of should be seen from the perspective of balanced criticism. They added
that in the same broadcast, the panelist in reply to a query also referred to the Hon'ble
pM. as "eloquent". Viewed holistically, the channel felt the broadcast was a balanced
criticism of a public figure and a popular politician;
reporter
'pJrUlt and a panellist
whereas, considering that the submitted documents required examination, the IMC
recommended to consider the matter in the next IMC meeting;
whereas, the matter was again put up before the IMC meeting held on 24.02.2015. lt was
observed by the IMC that sathiyam TV channel broadcast a talk ('UNGAL ASEERVATHA
NERAM') on Bible by a preacher (Brother Appadurai) of the Christian faith at 6-30 a.m.
on 9.12.2014 and towards the end of the talk, the preacher administered a prayer to the
followers. During the course of the prayer, Brother Appadurai stated, "Just because of
one dreadful man the entire community has become weak. That man and his supporters
are advancing towards us and I am unable to stand against him. Under mental stress I
am looking at you. Oh God! Save our children from their hands and given them strength
and hope.". The IMC noted that referring to Daniel when the prayer starts, suddenly
there is a line "dreadful man.. . " ; and during the prayer for humanity the reference to the
dreadful man sounded out of place and out of context. The IMC opined that during the
prayer Brother Appadurai has couched a negative statement inside his prayer with an
oblique reference to one individual, whether attributed to one particular political leader or
any other person in his otherwise mass religious service; and that in the name of Daniel
under whom Brother Appadurai tries to take refuge, has packed unsavoury and
unwarranted words that evoke feeling of hatred by projecting one person as a dreadful
man. The IMC felt that this statement was uncalled for and has implicit potential to sow
enmity between communities in the country and thereby, violative of the Programme
Code. As regards another programme'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM', the IMC noted
that the programme was based on news reports published in various newspapers in the
state in the context of J&K Assembly elections. One senior iournalist who participated
in the discussion was shown making comments that one particular political leader used
his oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements. The IMC felt that news
report telecast by the channel deliberately put a finger on somebody without any plausible
reasons;
Whereas, having regard to the material on record, preview of the CD, the written and oral
submissions of the channel and totality of the circumstances, IMC concluded that
Sathiyam channel has violated the Programme Code by telecasting the said
programmes. Accordingly, the IMC recommended that a "Warning" may be issued
to the channel to strictly abide by the Programme and Advertising Code and to be
more careful in future;
^t lL tt
/Ll
'' --...-:
t
2,l5l t s
(NEETt SI\Ri<1P.)
ii|.sr6/D ir€ ci. r
ii-'nrTq
lF,-f,r !-sl Finr5r
i,!tn, .f !.forTai:.rn &.-rr. .:asrrng
1:.i.:: ii
. :, ...
ai ':- t)l ':
,
whereas, as per para 5.2 of the Guidelines for uplinking from India, one of the basic
of the company permitted to uplink registered channels is that the
"onJition"tourigations
iorp"ny shalicomply with the Piogramme Code prescribed under the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder;
whereas, as per para 8.1 of the said guidelines, in the event of a channel found to have
been/being used for transmitting any objectionablei unauthorized content inconsistent
with publiJ interest, the Central Government has the power to revoke the permission
granted;
whereas, as per para 8.2 of the said uplinking guidelines, the central Government has
the power to impose penalties for violation of any of the terms and conditions or other
provisions of the said guidelines;
whereas, in case of violation of Programme code this Ministry have powers to suspend
the permission of uplinking granted to a company for a period of 30 days in the event of
first viofation as per para 8.2.1 , tor 90 days in the event of second violation as per para
8.2.2 and revocation of permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to the
remaining period of permission in the event of third violation as per para 8.2.3 of the said
uplinking guidelines;
Whereas, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation)
Act, 1995 provides that where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient
so to do in the interest of the (i) sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or
(iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency or
morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any
channel or programme;
Whereas the Competent Authority, having considered all the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the recording, the oral and written submissions of the Channel, the
recommendations of the lMC, the provisions of the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, has come to the conclusion that
there was a clear violation of Rule 6(1Xc), (d), (e ) & (i) of the Programme Code; and that
the channel was supposed to telecast such nature of content with care, caution and
sensitivity;
Now, Therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, as explained above,
the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, in exercise of
powers under the Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines issued by it, the terms of permission
granted to uplink/downlink the TV channel and under Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the
Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereby warns Sathiyam TV channel
to strictly adhere to the Programme and Advertising Codes and to be more careful
with regard to content to be telecast on the channel.
TV channel'
strict compliance with the above direction should be ensured by sathiyam.
fit in
deemed
channel 1s
Ail;;iil.h"tt entait such action against SathiyamW
with the Cable Television Nltwork (Regulation) Act, ]995 and the Rules
#il;;;
permission/approval granted
iramed thereunder as also the terms and conditions of the
under uplinking/downlinking
guidelines.
/ffi1,p1,s
^t F
INEETI SARKARI
Director (BC)
Tele. 23386536
(+R
r*{-€1-g)
(NEETI SARKAR)
Managing Director,
M/s. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd.'
No.1, Kamaraj Park Street'
Kalmandapam, RoYaPuram,
P.O. Box 553,
Chennai - 600 013
fr|lto/Director
qq rqriq Tartiq
cr.i cr.r!, q{ ffi
qq-fl
Mln. of Inlormatton & Baoadcaatina
Govt. ot lndta, N€w O.thl
(Shri
Gopy to : Electronic Media Monitoring centre, Electronic Media Monitoring centre,
i.H.Vsna*anath, ADG), Ministry oilnformation & Broadcasting, 1Oth Floor, Soochna
gh"*"n, Lodhi Road, C'CO Comirtex, New Delhi - for kind information and necessary
action.