top of page
  • Nandini

Navigating the Constitutional Tightrope: A Case Study on the Constitutionality of Self-Regulatory Bodies in the Indian Media Industry

Authored by Dhruv Kalia, a 3rd-year Law Student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, & Intern at The Society For Constitutional Law Discussion

Navigating the Tightrope: Self-Regulation in India's Media Landscape
Representational Image


The Indian media industry, a pillar of democracy, has long grappled with the delicate balance between preserving its hard-won freedom of the press and ensuring accountability to the public it serves. At the crux of this debate lies the question of self-regulation – a mechanism that empowers the industry to police itself while simultaneously safeguarding its independence from government interference. As India continues to navigate the evolving media landscape, the constitutionality of self-regulatory bodies has ignited a discourse that touches upon the very foundations of the nation's democratic principles.

The Freedom of the Press: A Constitutional Cornerstone

The freedom of the press, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental right that underpins the country's democratic fabric. This freedom, however, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, and relations with foreign states, among other considerations. It is within this constitutional framework that the debate over self-regulation in the media industry unfolds.

Proponents of self-regulation argue that the media industry is best positioned to police itself, given its intimate understanding of the complexities and nuances of its operations. Self-regulatory bodies, comprised of industry professionals and stakeholders, can establish and enforce ethical standards, address grievances, and ensure accountability without compromising the media's independence.

The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), a self-regulatory body established by the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), exemplifies this approach. Established in 2008, the NBSA adjudicates complaints against news channels, imposing penalties ranging from advisories and apologies to fines and directing the broadcaster to take the impugned content down.

The Press Council of India (PCI), a statutory body established under the Press Council Act of 1978, serves as another self-regulatory mechanism. While not entirely independent from government oversight, the PCI aims to preserve the freedom of the press and maintain high professional standards among print media.

The Counterarguments: Concerns over Effectiveness and Accountability

Critics of self-regulation, however, argue that the industry's self-interest may undermine its ability to effectively police itself. They cite instances where self-regulatory bodies have failed to hold media organizations accountable for ethical breaches, leading to a perceived lack of transparency and public trust. In 2012, the PCI faced criticism for its handling of the paid news scandal, where media outlets were alleged to have accepted money for favourable coverage during elections. The Council's perceived inaction led to calls for stronger regulatory mechanisms and raised questions about its effectiveness.

The constitutionality of self-regulatory bodies in the media industry has been a subject of legal scrutiny. In the landmark case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the media to self-regulate, stating that "the airwaves or frequencies remain the public property and its use has to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent monopoly of that medium." However, in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for an independent regulatory authority, citing concerns over the possible influence of powerful corporate interests on self-regulatory bodies.

The Judicial Lens: Landmark Cases Shaping the Discourse

The constitutionality of self-regulatory bodies in the Indian media industry has been a subject of extensive judicial scrutiny, with several landmark cases shaping the discourse and setting precedents for the future. One such case that stands out is the Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India (2007), where the Supreme Court delved into the issue of self-regulation in the broadcasting sector. In this case, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), a self-regulatory body for non-news channels, challenged the government's decision to amend the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, which sought to bring content regulation under the purview of the government. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the constitutional validity of self-regulation, stating that "self-regulation by the body representative of the broadcasters is really the essence of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. "

However, the court also emphasized the need for an independent oversight mechanism, suggesting the establishment of a broadcasting authority to address grievances and ensure accountability. This case underscored the delicate balance between preserving the media's freedom of expression and the necessity for responsible regulation. Another pivotal case that shaped the discourse on self-regulation in the media industry is the Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007) case. In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the self-regulatory mechanism established by the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and its ability to impose penalties on errant broadcasters. The court stated, "We find no reason to doubt the utility and effectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism evolved by the NBA."

The Evolution of Self-Governing Bodies: Adapting to Changing Landscapes

As the media industry continues to evolve, self-regulatory bodies have adapted and transformed to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies and shifting consumer preferences. The rise of digital media and social platforms has necessitated a reassessment of existing regulatory frameworks and a renewed focus on self-governance.

The Digi pub News India Foundation (DNIF), established in 2019, is a self-regulatory body aimed at upholding the highest standards of journalism in the digital news space. Recognizing the unique challenges posed by online media, the DNIF has developed a robust code of ethics and established mechanisms for addressing grievances and ensuring accountability.

Furthermore, the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), formed in 2022 through the merger of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), represents a significant step towards consolidating self-regulation efforts across traditional and digital media platforms.

Data and Perspectives

According to a report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a think tank based in New Delhi, self-regulatory bodies in the Indian media industry have adjudicated over 2,500 complaints between 2008 and 2018, highlighting their active role in addressing public grievances. However, the report also noted concerns over the lack of transparency and inconsistencies in the enforcement of penalties, underscoring the need for continuous improvement and adaptation. A study by the Centre for Media Studies (CMS), a non-profit research organization, revealed that 65% of Indian citizens believe that self-regulation in the media industry is essential for maintaining credibility and trust. This data highlights the public's desire for accountability measures that strike a balance between freedom of expression and responsible journalism.

As India navigates the evolving media landscape, the constitutionality and effectiveness of self-regulatory bodies will continue to be a subject of discourse and legal scrutiny. The path forward lies in fostering a collaborative approach, where self-governing bodies, independent oversight mechanisms, and robust legal frameworks work in tandem to uphold the principles of press freedom while ensuring accountability to the public they serve. Data from organizations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) shed light on the challenges faced by the Indian media industry. In the 2022 World Press Freedom Index, India ranked 150th out of 180 countries, indicating significant concerns over press freedom and the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms.

Additionally, a study by the Media Research Users Council (MRUC) revealed that nearly 60% of Indian households rely on television as their primary source of news and information, underscoring the media's profound impact on public discourse and the need for robust accountability measures. As India continues to navigate the complex landscape of media regulation, the path forward lies in striking a delicate balance between preserving the freedom of the press and ensuring accountability. A multifaceted approach, incorporating elements of self-regulation, independent oversight, and robust legal frameworks, may offer a viable solution.

Strengthening existing self-regulatory bodies, such as the NBSA and the PCI, through enhanced transparency, public participation, and enforcement mechanisms, could bolster their credibility and effectiveness. Additionally, the establishment of an independent, statutory regulatory authority with representation from various stakeholders, including civil society and media professionals, could provide an impartial oversight mechanism. Furthermore, regular review and updating of legal frameworks, such as the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995 and the Press Council Act of 1978, could ensure their relevance in the rapidly evolving media landscape.

Public Engagement and Strengthening Accountability Measures

As the discourse surrounding media self-regulation continues to evolve, there is a growing recognition of the need for increased public engagement and robust accountability measures. Self-regulatory bodies must actively seek input from diverse stakeholders, including civil society organizations, media watchdogs, and the general public, to ensure that their decision-making processes are transparent and responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. One potential avenue for achieving this is the establishment of public hearings or consultative forums, where members of the public can voice their concerns, offer feedback, and participate in the development of ethical guidelines and complaint redressal mechanisms. By fostering an open dialogue and embracing a spirit of collaboration, self-regulatory bodies can enhance their legitimacy and garner greater public trust.

Furthermore, the adoption of clear and enforceable penalties for violations of established codes of conduct is crucial. While self-regulatory bodies have traditionally relied on advisory measures and apologies, there is a growing call for more stringent consequences, such as hefty fines, temporary suspensions, or even the revocation of broadcasting licenses in cases of egregious breaches. This could serve as a deterrent against unethical practices and reinforce the media's commitment to upholding the highest professional standards.

Capacity building and training initiatives for media professionals should also be a priority. By providing ongoing education on ethical journalism, legal frameworks, and best practices, self-regulatory bodies can equip journalists with the necessary tools to navigate the complexities of the modern media landscape while upholding their responsibilities to society. Ultimately, the effectiveness of self-regulation hinges on the industry's willingness to embrace transparency, accountability, and a genuine commitment to serving the public interest. By actively engaging with diverse stakeholders and implementing robust measures to ensure compliance, self-regulatory bodies can play a crucial role in fostering a media ecosystem that upholds the sacred principles of press freedom while maintaining the trust and confidence of the Indian citizenry.


The path towards upholding press freedom while ensuring accountability in the Indian media landscape is a complex and nuanced one. As the industry continues to evolve, the role of self-regulatory bodies will remain pivotal in striking the delicate balance between these two fundamental principles. However, self-regulation cannot exist in isolation; it must be complemented by robust legal frameworks, independent oversight mechanisms, and an unwavering commitment to transparency and public engagement. By fostering a collaborative approach that harmonizes self-governance with external checks and balances, the Indian media can cement its position as a bulwark of democracy, safeguarding the right to free expression while instilling public trust and credibility. Ultimately, the true measure of success will lie in the media's ability to hold itself accountable to the highest ethical standards, thereby fulfilling its sacred duty as the fourth estate and serving as a catalyst for an informed and engaged citizenry. The journey towards this goal will undoubtedly be fraught with challenges, but it is a pursuit that is indispensable to the health of India's vibrant democratic traditions.

Disclaimer: The Society For Constitutional Law Discussion makes endeavours to ensure that the information published on the website is factual and correct. However, some of the content may contain errors. In the blog/article, all views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of TSCLD or its members in any manner whatsoever. In case of any Query or Concern, please reach out to us.

bottom of page