No.804/46/201 s-BC.

lll
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
,A' WING. SHASTRI BHAWAN.
NEW DELHI - 11OOOI

Dated 7{h June, 2016

ADVISORY

Whereas it had come to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that 'Aaj Tak'
channel had telecast a Programme on 30.07.2015 at 2l:00 hrs in the context oithe hanging of
Yakub Memon on the very day i.e., 30.7.2015 early morning ;
Whereas, in the programme, the Aak Tak had shown the recording of a telephone conversation
conducted by the channel with Chhota Shakeel, who is the aide of Dawood lbiahim, the infamous
gangster wanted for several cases including for allegedly masterminding and financing Mumbai
terror attacks of 1993 and both of whom had fled India. The Programme was carried ior over 5
minutes wherein Chhota Shakeel can be heard to be making some very objectionable comments
about the Indian Judiciary system such as:

1d.".- $.n"S aqr gwrqddft € er{ uw ! g-o d$r gFar i Avr t ss qrd 6f tu R-gRT{ n d-sr EtTE
d.fr oi h-rar *_r cf, ff R-r i qn-tEs-{ qTR-s t er a ofg-qiTc.- ez egwrc A
ffic d ftrdi Fil.r d R-gRn o1 s'u'*d s s€ii aqr fq*' qqq +fi
ldr -tr d-sr
d srvr tyre # I €tr
"r$
"Iq<
-*r d.To. so fff i ao' fu"T. {o ghqr i i-q fu* t r cr<ffid o} t" qr+d s rs t r q5 aed or
tcto B. gq eil'if i C6 grrcfr Q qedr ftqr {r"

Whereas briefly, the channel had chosen not to edit out the parts where wanted terrorists like
shakeel have passed disparaging comments on the functioning of Indian Jujiciat, thereby
appearing to cast aspersions against the integrity of judiciary by blaian y disregarding the process
'and-the
of law as followed by the Indian Justice system judgmlnt given. ay cairryin jlnterviews or
terrorists at large known to be residing abroad and their provocattve comments, possibility of
breach of law and order could not have been ruled out.
Whereas, by canying such content the channel (AAJ TAK) apparently violated various
rutes of the
Programme Code-6 (1 ) (e) and 6 (1) (g) prescribed under the Cable Television Network
Rutes, 1994
given as under:

. Rule 6 (1) (e) - is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against
maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-nationar attitudes
o Rule 6 (1) (q) - Contains aspersions against the integrity of the president and Judiciary

Whereas, it is further stated that this Ministry had also issued an Advisory to all TV channels
on
24th February, 2o1o wherein Ministry had taken a very serious note of interviews
of terrorists being
telecast on TV channels and had cautioned all rV channels to avoid undue coverage to
such
terrorists and terrorist groups which can jeopardize national security ano le-no t em a
platf.o.rm to advance their political agenda. Hence, it was informed
that sucli in trtur"
would be considered gross violation of the provislons of the programme code. "or-r"g"

W!9r.g*' _ according to
basic. conditions/obrigations of
permission/approvar for
Uplinking/Downlinking of a news and current affairs TV Channel in India whereby
uplink/downlink 'Aaj rak'TV channel has been granted, the cnannet was boundf"t.isiion
to
to follow the
Programme code and Advertising code prescribed under the aforementioneJnivirr"r;
,n
"no
AvE-=
1lt
ltQ
_ (=8R r,r-orvr
'"ffi;1E^t
",..
.m"x ;f T u.o
bovt..t ",*Jlfr "
I, Ji:, ftcf oethi
 the event of failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions, permission/approval granted
was liable to be suspended/ cancelled;
whereas, a show cause notice (scN) dated 7.8.2015 was issued to 'Aai rak' TV channel for the
alleged violation.

whereas, in response to the scN, an email dated 22.8.2015 had been received from 'Aaj rak'
channel submitting, inter-alia that the hanging of the convict, who had been given death penalty
by the Courts, raised important questions, including the very question of the imposition of the death
penalty as part of our penal laws; the issues being debated at that time included dissent by one of
the Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of procedure adopted in deciding
the convict's curative Petition (as observed in its order dated 2g-o7 -20115 in w.p(c) No. 129 of
2015). They further attempted to put forth that the programme's aim was to draw an answer as to
whether Dawood lbrahim was the mastermind behind the terrorist acts for which yakub Memon,
that the television anchor nowhere suggested that the hanging of the convict was wrong; it was
not possible for the television anchor to monitor or control what the Interviewee said; On the point
of subsequent editing of the conversation, it would have been inappropriate to edit-out what the
Interviewee said, since such editing would very likely have changed the context of what
came to
be spoken by the Interviewee; What the Interviewee iaid must als6 be assessed in
the perspectrve
that in the case ofthe Interviewee in question, there has yet to be any final adjudication of his guilt
or Innocence in relation to the subject matter of the conversation; it would alsb be inconect tolay
that by holding the conversation in question the television anchor or the broadcaster gave to
the
Interviewee a 'platform'to air his views; insofar as Advisory dated 24th February 2010
ision""rneo,
the purpose and intent of issuing the said advisory, as expressry stated theiein, was:i,
..... such
undue coverage to terrorists and allowing them to AIR their views freely can jeopardize
nationat
security as well. .... ln the interests of nationat security ...., the media ii nereby
advisia to avoid
glving undue coverage to terrorists and terrorist groips which may
hetp them to advance their
political agenda. ....."which concerns do not appryin the
case ofthe subject terecast, inasmuch as
the conversation between the Interviewee and the television anchor was limited
to the issue of one
person, namely the Convict, and did not in any manner discu-cs
any larger issues or political
'Ji agenda
which the
.Interviewee may have wanted to advance; furtheimoie ttre questLn nationar
security being affected by the Subject Telecast also does not arise
in this case; an informed public
is the best judge of the views and counter views presented in
a terevision prograrmej m"rety
short response by a certain person cannot cause any law and order
o. prori" oiGiisJues in any"
part of the country' the content of the subject Telecist
in no manner cast any aspersions on the
'integrity' of the President of the Judiciary ih
any manner wharsoever.

whereas, 'Aaj rak' channel requested the Ministry to withdraw the

said scN; and requested for
grant of a personal hearing before a final decision is
taken.

marter was praced before the Inter-Ministeriar

Ihgr:::^t!"
21 .1 .2O16 f or its
committee (rMC) in its meeting herd on
consideration;

Yh?lg:.' q ye9y9gt9d, 'Aaj rak'TV channer was granted opportunity for personar hearing before
the IMC on .2016.
21 .1

whereas, the representatives of the_ channer appeared before

the rMc; the rMC previewed the
reco,dings of the programme and. thereafter, iequested the representatives
position with respect to the aileged uior"tion; the representativesof the channer to
-"lTlf]_I:ir
reiterated most of the things as in their written reply; of the channel

whereas the representative of the channel crarified that the Ministry,s

parriar stalement and the programme scN contained onry the
shourd have been considered i; it";i;it; ;i
interview of chhota Shakeer, the channer had tried to confront tn"
him and made him to"1liing
confess to

", .frffiiffi,,
 his wrongdoing and misdeeds. As to the Ministry's advisory on the issue of telecast of such
interviews, the representative explained that they did not give undue importance to the
interviewee; there was no criticism of the action taken by the government; it was not meant to
create gulf between the communities; moreover, in the wake of the telecast; no law and order
problem was witnessed across India. The representative further submitted that during the said
interview chhota shakeel confessed, inter-alia, about involvement of riger Memon in the
Mumbai bomb blast case; no contempt of the Hon'ble court was made and tlso the telecast did
not criticise the judge or the judgement and any institution; the programme needed to be seen in
its overall perspective and also to be accepted that there were diverse opinion on the issue over
other medium like Twitter, etc.

Whereas, after hearing the submission of the representative of the channel, the IMC oointed out
that a particular question is involved in this case when considered in its entirety; the channel had
held an interview with a fugitive who is persona non- grata in the country; although the channel
implied to extract confession from such an outlaw, there were a lot ol sensitivities involved;
chhota shakeel was unnecessarily and unjusfly given a public forum and public exposure. The
IMC emphasized that before telecasting the said interview, the channel should also have
kept in
mind the time and situation prevailing around this whole episode, the impact it could have on
vulnerable sections of the society. The IMC further noted that the channel should not have
allowed use of their medium for people like Chhota Shakeel to vent out opinions at such
a volatile
moment as some mischievous people could have exploited such situation to their advantage.
IMC further explained that although the channel has freedom of expression
in the country, there
are some reasonable restrictions also which need to be followed, for TV channels
there is a
programme code and keeping in view the sensitivities, the channel
cannot go beyond the limits
prescribed in the programme code. The rMc further stated that ror
eacrr ino Jvery,"oirr,
there are certain codes; TV audience is not same on Twitter or on other
media; as for TV
channels, there is a prescribed programme code and ,Aaj rak'TV channer
snoutJiave rept in
mind the spirit and intent of the law (programme code) in mind
as well as the sensiuifiti", inuo,u"o
in the case. The IMC observed that the channel should have been
a litfle more careful while
telecasting the said programme.

whereas the IMC concruded that terecast of the interview of chhota

shakeer not onry cast
asp€rslons on the.judicial system but was also likely to offend the
sensibilities or Certiln sections
of the society and hence, it shourd have been moie carefur whire
carrying tni inGrvieiv in tne
context of Yakub Memon hanging case. Having regard to
the cD, the written and orar submissions of thJ ch-anner and
the materiar'on-o"oro i"u,", ot
"nu
totarity of the circumstances, the
IMC found the programme was in vioration of the prog-mme
cod". rn ,i"* oi ih-iJ, t-he Inrc
recommended that an "Advisory" be issued to thi channer
to abide;t th" ;;il;"-r"
and Advertising Codes and to be more careful in future.

whereas, as per para 5.2 of the Guiderines for uprinking from

India, one of the basic
conditionsiobrigations of the.company permitted to uprinK registered
channers is that the
company shall compry with the programme code prescribed-
under the caoie ieievision
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and riles trameO tnerlunOer;

whereas, sub-section (2) of section 20 of the cable Terevision Networks (Reguration)

provides that where the centrar Government thinks Act, 1995
it necessary or expedient so to do in the
interest of the (i) sovereignty or inlegrity of India; or (ii) security
oi India;'or iiiij irlnoiv i"r"tion,
of India with any foreign state; or (iv) pubric order, oecency or morarity,
it may, by order, regurate
or prohibit the transmission or re{ransmission of any channel or prodiarre'

whereas, sub-section (3) of section 20 of the cabre Terevision Networks (Reguration)

provides that where the centrar Government considers Act, 1995
thar any programme of any channer is
not in conformitv with the prescribed programme cooe ,eterieJ
ioi";;i;;;;;r;nJ ir"l"riu"o
,rV\a!:_
^l-
1l6lt6
- ( 1..i, ,ri,. .
[weerr sARK;a\
r{<.Y16/Dfte.t^,

","
Jl,'1"H,:y-;"'-"
tr''e t#" +'f.::Xca3t'ns
^
ucvr,.i tf:r , r,",. a.tt;
advertisement code referred to in section 6, it may by order regulate or prohibit the transmission
or re-transmission of such 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 crear
violation of Rule 6(1)(e) and (g) 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 unoer
the Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines issued by it, the term! of permission granted to
uplink/downlink the TV channel and under Sub-section 2 & 3 of Section 2O of the CabldTelevision
Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereby advises Aaj rak rv channel to abide by the
Programme and Advertising Godes and to be more careful with regard to content to be
telecast on the channel.

strict compliance with the above direction should be ensured by Aaj rak rv channet. Any
violation shall entail such action against Aaj Tak TV channel as dLemeo fit in accordance with
the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder as atso
the terms and conditions of the permission/approval granted under uplinking/downlinking
guidelines.
At r_
'Y::-
'46ltQ
I NEETI SARKAR ]
Director (BC)
Te1e.23386536
Managing Director,
AAJ TAK TV Channet,
M/s. TV Today Network Ltd.,
FC-8, Sector 16-A,
NOTDA - 201301

copy to: Electronic Media Monitoring centre, Erectronic Media Monitoring

centre, (shri L.R.
vishaw€nath, ADG), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, iOrh Froor,
soo"in" gi"*'"-;, Looti
Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi - for kind information an-d necessary
action.