No.804/46/201 S-BG.

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

Dated 7n June. 2016

Whereas it had come to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that 'ABP News'
Channel had telecast a Programme on 31.07.2015 at 20:59 hrs in the context of Yakub Memon
hanging on the previous day i.e., 30.7.2015.
Whereas, in the programme, the channel ABP News had shown the recording of a telephonic
conversation conducted by the channel with Chhota Shakeel, who had been the aide of Dawood
lbrahim, 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 ever since. The
Programme was carried for over 11 minutes wherein Chhota Shakeel was heard making some
very objectionable comments about the Indian Judicial system such as:
Et-cr vr+td- Tff gf{qr i{rq drrf of tq rS t ft <nc tri i fu-s er6 6I {sro ft-ar tt ft-q il{6 g6'
tr-{r6 6t enq'ffi i rFrS qr tr.dl frqr I qq d6 3rls dq e-S wm nff orH ils il6 {S aw d ekt
d.} oft sS irr€ iDI ginFr fuqI qrsflr

Whereas he made certain highly objectionable comments suggesting unleashing communal

Whereas, briefly, the channel had chosen not to edit out the parts where wanted terrorists like
Shakeel had passed disparaging comments on the functioning of Indian Judiciary, thereby
appearing to cast aspersions on the integrity of judiciary by blatantly disregarding the process of
law as followed by the Indian Justice system and the judgment given through the same. By
carrying interviews of terrorists at large, known to be residing abroad and their provocative
comments, possibility of breach of law and order could not have been ruled out.
Whereas, by carrying such content the channel (ABP News) apparently violated programme
codes- 6 (1) (e) and 6 (1) (g) prescribed underthe Cable Television Network Rules,1994, given
as under:

o Rule 6 ('l) (e) - is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against
maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes
. &lg_gllllgL- 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 24'n
February, 2010 wherein Ministry had taken a very serious note of interviews of terrorists being
telecast on TV channels and had cautioned all TV channels to avoid undue coverage to such
terrorists and terrorist groups which can jeopardize national security and lend them a
platform to advance their political agenda. Hence, it was informed that such coverage in future
would be considered gross violation of the provisions of the Programme Code;

4r*-1t6lt6
,"€E*;;#",
,,.._ft*s$iffi*",
Whereas, according to basic conditions/obligations ofpermission/approval for
Uplinking/Downlinking of a news and current affairs TV Channel in India whereby permission to
uplink/downlink 'ABP News'TV Channel has been granted, the channel was bound to follow the
Programme Code and Advertising Code prescribed under the aforementioned AcVRules; 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, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 7.8.2015 was issued to'ABP News'TV Channel;

Whereas, replying to the SCN, ABP News had sent an email dated 18.8.2015 submitting, inter-
alia, that the allegations and averments are extremely vague, uncertain and not supported by
relevant provisions of the applicable Acts/ rules, and as such it is impossible to give a meaningful
reply to the same; the comments quoted in the SCN do not, in any way whatsoever, derogate
from or violate the provisions of Rules 6(1)(e) and 6(1Xg) of the Cable Television Network Rules,
1994; the Advisory of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 24tn February, 2010
appears to have been misconstrued and erroneously applied in the context of the relevant
recitals in the said Notice; the interview needs to be seen holistically; at a time when Yakub
Menon is handed the death sentence for his role in the same Mumbai blasts, it is pertinent for a
news channel to bring out more details of the 1993 blast case. The interview was that of Chhota
Shakeel, an alleged associate of the alleged underworld don Dawood lbrahim, who was
questioned, amongst other things, about the role of Dawood lbrahim in the Mumbai blasts and
also about the possibility of his return to India to face the law; a reading of the transcript would
show that the anchor persistently and deliberately steered the conversation to this end and also
to highlight the act of terror in the past. They further opined that broadcast of a view critical to
the death penalty cannot, by any stretch ofthe imagination, be construed as being a criticism of
the Judiciary and felt that the show cause notice and its contents suffered from arbitrariness and
discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

Whereas, ABP News channel requested the Ministry that the aforementioned Show Cause
Notice be withdrawn and requested for a suitable date for a hearing and an opportunity for the
issue to be discussed objectively, transparently and in detail, in order to formulate a reasonable
alternative resolution.

Whereas, as requested, ABP News TV channel was granted opportunity for personal hearing
before the IMC on 21 .1 .2016.

Whereas, the representatives of the channel appeared before the lMC. The IMC went through
the SCN, reply submitted by the channel and also previewed the recordings of the programme.
The IMC asked the representatives of the channel to clarify their position wilh respect to the
alleged violation. The representatives of the Channel reiterated most of the things as in their
written reply.

Whereas, the representatives of the channel further clarified that by carrying the said programme,
the channel had sincerely tried to bring out the truth; they felt that media had a role in bringing
out the truth with responsibility and sensitivity; in their view, the coverage was not overdone, nor
was Chhota Shakeel deified; whatever was done was done to inform the public about this
important happening. The representatives held that the channel did not violate any provision of
the Programme Code; that the channel also complied with the conditions laid down in the
advisory referred to in the SCN. The IMC pointed out that the so-called statements telecast by
the channel had the potential to divide communities along communal lines. The representative
stated that they tried to carry the interview of Chhota Shakeel with sensitivity and their only motive
was to turn him around to divulge the truth about their involvement in anti-national activities. lt
was further pointed out by him that they had exercised their right to freedom of expression
guaranteed under the Constitution; and that every action is followed by reaction; and so, this
case caused the interviewee to reveal his Iatent feelings; but the channel took into account the
/Aorl.i
'-
'
(NE=r r'"19!Io '
s/\r:<r<,-.i=)
litlrrrs7 o I re crr, r
ql]rtt \rrq trrt{..::l .rir::fq
tuiin. of Infirmatioi ?^ Bfoedcastino
'.Ii{.r ti ll--il
C.vt. ai".,1'rr.
i, I , ,e.r :.jtha
sensitivity of the country while conducting the interview. The representative further clarified that
they did not attack any member of the judiciary and telecast of the interview did not give rise to
any law and order problem or to violence in the country.

Whereas, the IMC noted that in so far as programming on TV channels is concerned, there is a
certain particular code i.e. programme code; and so, all TV channels are required to follow its
provisions. While it is true that the channel has to take recourse to investigative journalism and
do certain things behind the scenes but they are still required to abide by the programme code.
Even the Right to Freedom of Expression entail certain reasonable restrictions which are to be
followed by the channels in letter and spirit. The IMC further pointed out that while carrying
programme of such nature, it should keep all the sensibilities in view and keep the statute book
as of today in mind; the channel should have been very careful while telecasting the said
programme. The representative of the channel came around to the views of lMC. Agreeing with
the IMC's view, the representatives of channel further stated that their channel strives to work
alongside the Government in so far as question of national integrity is concerned, besides giving
high quality of content.

Whereas, the IMC came to the conclusion that content of the interview not only cast aspersion
on the judicial system but was also likely to offend the sensibilities of certain sections of the
society and hence, it should have been more careful while carrying the interview with Chhota
Shakeel on the occasion of Yakub Memon hanging. Having regard to the material on record
and review of the CD, the written and oral submissions of the channel and totality of the
circumstances, the IMC found the programme was in violation of the Programme Code. ln view
of this, the IMC recommended that an "Advisory" be issued to the channel to abide by
the Programme and Advertising Codes and to be more careful in future.

Whereas, as per para 5.2 of the Guidelines for Uplinking from India, one of the basic
conditions/obligations of the company permitted to uplink registered channels is that the
company shall comply with the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder;

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 lndia 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, sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
provides that where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel is
not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or the prescribed
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 clear
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 under
the Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines issued by it, the terms of permission granted to
uplink/downlink the TV channel and under Sub-section 2 & 3 of Section 20 of the Cable Television
A]J-E-
'1lbItb
_ (=t:iit.:,r:-:rj
(l\tEfaTt s/\RrlqR)
f++sr6lr: i.e cl..
q{d \rJr{ qri-(q q-1.,.rq
tdln. of tit.'mat,o,r r :tro;Ccastrno
{,Tir r;.. ';n. .r_: n= .,
cL!1. rjt li:i,. | . . ,: ,ii
Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereby advises ABP News TV channel to abide by the
programme lnd Advertising Codes 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 ABP News TV channel. Any
violation shall entail such action against ABP News TV channel as deemed fit in accordance with
the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder as also
the terms and conditions of the permission/approval granted under uplinking/downlinking
guidelines.
'1l6llb
^r+_
I NEETI SARKARI
Director (BC)
Te1e.23386536
Managing Director,
ABP NEWS TV Channel, (€B sgFR)
(NEETI SARKAR)
M/s. ABP News Network PtJt. Ltd., P{ttt6,/D irsclo r
A-37. Sector 60. qFr g.Fl rqf{!! lranFl|l
Mln. ot tnformglion E Broadca8llng
NOf DA (U.P.) - 20't3O7 rrrro r-ron, rd f#l
Govt. ot Indi., New Dolhi

Gopy to : Electronic Media Monitoring centre, Electronic Media Monitoring centre, (shri L.R.
Vis-hiwanath, ADG), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 1Oth Floor, Soochna Bhawan, Lodhi
Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi -for kind information and necessary action.