LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


In essence, media ethics is a codification of a portion of basic moral principles, such as accuracy, objectivity, honesty, trustworthiness, decency, unprejudiced existence, and so on. Media ethics is part of applied morality that uses the knowledge of meta-morals and universal principles or rules to regularise morality in fathoming that in their day-to-day works of announcing and writing it is astounding morals or good problems. The ethical values, expressed in values, composed or unwritten, are media norms or news content norms that affirm how media can work and preserve a strategic detachment from injuring or causing torment and enduring or disrupting others, e.g. when obtaining data; when deciding whether to distribute; when listening to grumblings about their job.


To the fulfillment of the values enshrined in the Constitution of India, the press had a vital mission to complete. In the hearts of the people, the press must help advance harmony and a sense of peace and shun the dissemination or propagation of content that threatens to create a condition of social havoc and a sense of hate towards the people of the world.

Numerous laws control and regulate the dissemination of news in the country. Mass media rules have been in force in India since the inception. Numerous legislation relating to the press was instituted at the time of the British Raj. Freedom, several regulations that are relevant to the media have been introduced by various administrations.

Some of the laws which are concerning the media are

  • Indian Press Act, 1910;
  • Vernacular Press Act, 1878;
  • First Press Regulation, Gagging Act, 1857;
  • Some provisions relating to the freedom of the press Official Secrets Act, 1923;
  • Sea customs act, 1962;
  • Press and Regulation of Books act, 1867;
  • Harmful Publication Act, 1956;
  • Parliamentary Proceedings Act, 1956;
  • Delivery of Books and Newspapers Act,1954/56;
  • Defense of India Act, 1915;
  • Press Council of India Act, 1978;
  • Cable Television Regulation act,1995;
  • Right to Information, 2002.


A free press can only flourish in a free culture. Here, communalism is a threat to the emergence of a democratic and stable society and the country's unity.

  • In covering any events that might have occurred in the world, the media should adhere to the accompanying guidelines.
  • Both article remarks and different views, irrespective of whether they should be governed by those papers or some writings to the editors or through any other system, and are free from profane assaults against leaders or any group and no instigation to violence shall be provided.
  • Generalized charges that challenge and smear the patriotism and stability of every network should be shunned.
  • Similarly, summarised charges and accusations against any culture of prejudice must also be shunned, leading to the instigation of mutual contempt and doubt.
  • The facts of any newspaper should not be suppressed, it should be avoided to intentionally slant any update on an event relevant to the culture.
  • News of incidents, including death toll, disturbance, violence, etc., should be described, comprehensive, and confined in carefully tailored words.



In detailing, documenting, and analyzing details, journalists should be transparent, truthful, fair, and bold. Journalists Should:

  • Evaluate the consistency and truthfulness of the data from any possible source and take steps to eliminate any mistakes.
  • Check the headlines on various issues to allow them an opportunity to react to accusations of misconduct.
  • At whatever realistic level, classify various sources. People are entitled to as much data on sources with unwavering consistency as conceivable.
  • To make a habit of interrogating the thinking process of the source before pledging anonymity.
  • Make sure the images, film, music, compositions, music nibbles, and citations news prods, and limited-time content works properly.


Moral writers should treat sources subjects and partners as individuals who deserve respect. Journalists need to:

  • Perceive that private people have a more significant right to control information about themselves than public authorities and other individuals looking for power, authority, or publicity from the other side.
  • Demonstrate excellent taste. Abstain from pandering to terrifying interest.
  • Be vigilant to differentiate between underage offenders and victims of sex crimes.
  • Balancing the interests of a suspect to a fair trial with the right of society to access the correct facts.


Editors and authors should be able to devote themselves to some interest other than the right of humanity to read. Journalists ought to:

  • Maintain a strategic distance from irreconcilable circumstances.
  • Keep clean of affiliations and exercises that can negotiate for integrity or harm legitimacy.
  • Refuse endowments, favors, expenditures, free travel and extraordinary care and neglect auxiliary work, electoral contribution, open office, and administration on the off chance of negotiating journalistic integrity in network alliances.
  • Be vigilant and brave in considering accountable for those in power.
  • Deny preferred treatment to advertisers and specific concerns and reject their pressure to control the inclusion of reporting.
  • The operation of individual press debates in which no transparent intrigue is involved would be called deprecatory to the aristocracy of the calling.


There is numerous legislation that further abridges press opportunities and the privilege of the native to records, as well as the privilege of the right to speak openly, rather than the restrictions placed on the press by the Constitution. In terms of public order, sovereignty, and the protection of the country, these laws are all in place.

  • Section 505, Indian Penal Code 1860.
  • Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, authorizes the government to seize control of all registered telegraphs and to request a letter to be intercepted.
  • The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 confers the right to read any publication or representation rendered by the state by any of its members.
  • The 1922 Police Incitement to Disaffection Act, which provides a provision for spreading police irritation and similar crimes. Official Secrets Act, 1923, which prohibits the procurement, compilation, recording, or re-distribution of archives or pictures or outlines or models of mystery government. It is this Act that prohibits Indian Journalists from distributing legislative information inside it.
  • The actions of different states on defense and public safety. This contains retribution for inciting rebellious acts to be committed.
  • Code of Criminal Practice, 1973, which grants the state the right to surrender duplicates of a publication that breaches the Indian Penal Code provision.
  • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, states that judicial directives and any publication of information that interferes with the administration of justice lead to willful disobedience.
  • The Young Persons Dangerous Publications Act, 1956, bans circulation and seeks to encourage the flow and writing of youths adverse to social propensities.


A certain form of the topic has often been generated by media trials when it includes the tug-of-war between two separate concepts, the free trial, and the free press, all of which are usually invested by the public at large. Freedom of the press of every country is a part of democracy. This is the kind of excuse that investigative journalism has been given.

Around the same time, moreover, the right to a fair hearing is a constitutional right guaranteed to both the accused and the claimant, uninfluenced by any external cause and thereby regarded as a constitutional tenant of justice. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, and Articles 129 and 215 (which speak of the right of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to discipline themselves for any contempt, respectively) of the Indian Constitution play an important part in this basic tenant. Several clauses speak of that basic tenant. Therefore, a writer might be responsible for the decision of the judiciary, where he refuses to report something that could go against the accused's "fair prosecution" or that during the case could compromise the impartiality of the court of justice.

The right to a fair trial is an absolute right given to any citizen within the jurisdiction of India under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.

The media trials have also persuaded prosecutors not to take up cases where the jury finds such persons to be convicted, without ever being proved because of the media trials, causing the victim to lose his right to have a lawyer. Nevertheless, it even deters the activists who genuinely take up those proceedings. For example, in the case where senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani had defended the defendant Manu Sharma in the case of Jessica Lal, it was during this period that one of the senior editors of the TV News Channel had proclaimed it to be a "defence of the indefensible," declaring that the defendant was already guilty of the crime of which he had not yet been proved. The media's presumption explicitly threatens the accused's right to have a fair hearing as well as his right to have a good lawyer.

In re P.C. Sen, 1968[1], a petition for special leave was lodged that a broadcast on an All India Radio station on the night of November 25, 1965, had been obstructive in the course of justice and amounted to contempt of court as it gave out the identity of the convicted. Justice Shah claimed that all laws about the court's contempt are well-settled. Any act that is committed or released to bring any judge or justice to the scope of contempt or that seeks to bring down the court's jurisdiction over anything that seeks to interfere with the law's proceedings would be treated as contempt of court.

There was no evidence in the case of Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Government and Ors.), 1996[2], that the accused had killed his partner. Nevertheless, whilst the matter was still pending in court, the press had begun to depict the perpetrator as a psychopath and was able to shift the public's opinions long before the matter was resolved. The High Court of Delhi ruled that any individual's conviction must be based purely on the facts of the case and not whether the media wished the individual to be found guilty. Based on the evidence present on hand, the allegations must therefore be framed against the person charged and not based on what the media depicts the person to be.



A bogus TRP scam was discovered earlier in October when a lawsuit was lodged by the Broadcast Audience Study Council through the Hansa Research Association, claiming that TRP numbers were rigged by some television channels. By bribing some households to watch it, the channels were accused of rigging their TRPs, Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh said at an October 8 press conference.BARC uses BAR-O-Meters, or 'people's meters,' which have been built to track TRPs in over 45,000 households. Impanelled families, representing over 80 crore persons, are divided into 12 groups. Separate viewer IDs are issued to the members of these households, which they are expected to put on when watching television. This lets BARC track which channels they are watching and for the same duration.Vikas Khanchandani, Chief Executive Officer of Republic TV, appeared before the Mumbai police for questioning in the case. "Chief Financial Officer Shiva Subramaniam Sundaram of the TV channel was scheduled to appear before the police on the previous day, but he demanded a re-schedule citing" family obligation.

Republic TV has consistently reported that in the TRP scam, the summons to its top editors was part of a "desperate witch hunt." They also accused the police of following an anti-free press policy.In conjunction with their investigation, the channel passed the Supreme Court to its top editors and executives against the summons of the city police. However, the top court declined to consider the plea.

The Bombay High Court ordered the Mumbai Police that if Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami is proposed to be arraigned in the TRP (Television Rating Points) case, he should first be summoned. It claimed that Goswami should appear before the police and assist with the investigation if citations are given.


In this case, on 30 October 1952, the Supreme Court of India charged the Editor, Printer, and Publisher of the Times of India (daily), Bombay, and Delhi with Contempt of Court proceedings for publishing a leading article in their paper entitled 'A Disturbing Judgment.' They were found guilty and convicted under the Act by the Judge.

In this case, the court acknowledged that in the terms or phrases that could be perceived as casting reflection upon the court, the report published in the regular had breached the limits of valid criticism.

In its decision, the court at that stage made itself exceedingly clear that no protest could have been made against the article if it had simply preached the message of divine distinction to the courts of law. Yet it not only breached the boundaries of critique, which is real but also had an unmistakable propensity to harm the integrity of the court, as it continued to ascribe ill-advised thought processes and motivations of the judges. Therefore, the problem here was the gross disdain of the judge. The certainty of the whole society in the administration of equity would inevitably be compromised and no more notable underhandedness than that can be envisioned if an idea is made in the minds of the public that the judges of the courts follow through on extraneous contemplations of decision-making. The court convicted them of contempt of court on the aforementioned grounds.

As the daily made an unconditional apology and an undertaking to issue the regret publicly, the court agreed to drop further proceedings.


The Court held that, for public review and inquiry, the equity agency and the judges are available. Judges have a duty to the general public and, without fear and help, a duty must be judged by conscience and devotion to the position, i.e. to uphold and preserve India's constitution and laws. The judges, therefore, shall decide what is right to be done in the light provided to them. Any review of the legal system or of the judges that hamper the organization of equity or dissolves confidence in the judges' impartial approach and criticizes the organization of equity must be avoided.

The court proceedings stemming from such an attempt of contempt of court. It is important to scrutinize decisions. Judges should not be credited with thought patterns. It takes equity into notoriety. One of the columns on which a fair foundation operates is faith in the organization of equity. Examination of the legislative system or judges should be accepted to the degree that such an examination would not undermine or hamper the equity association.


In this case, a bench of three judges ruled that the rule of contempt derives from a court's right to prosecute, by imprisonment or fine, persons who are guilty of words or actions that obstruct or, in general, obstruct the organization of equity. This right shall be exercised by all the prevailing courts of India, where such disrespect is exercised in facie curiae by the prevailing courts or on behalf of the courts inferior to them, irrespective of the position of the presentation.

In general, embarrassing the judges or courts will lead the role and institution of law to loss of care and incompetence and tantamounts to hate. Both proofs bringing an offense or disrespect to the court or affronting its pride or its loftiness or questioning its position constitute contempt submitted in respect of a particular judge or particular court or under unique circumstances submitted in respect of the whole judicial executive or the legal system.


An outstanding entertainer, Gordon Kaye, was hospitalized after a car crash. A columnist and picture taker used by the Sunday Sport paper checked the medical clinic location, where he recovered from the cerebrum medical operation, by guile entry. Pictures were taken of the offended group that was supposed to be spread in the Sunday Sport, going with what suggested a selective meeting with him. For the good of the offended party seeking to injunct the distribution of the article, a lawsuit was recorded, alleging it was a trespass into private life.

While the operation eventually met with halfway accomplishment on numerous grounds, Bingham LJ voiced apprehension about the non-attendance of any cure based on safety invasion. If a person has a choice at some stage to be let alone by strangers with no open passion to search for, it should certainly be the stage at which he lies in the clinic recovering from cerebral medical treatment, and in the near fractional order of his wealth. Just that, while gross, would not entitle him to assist in English law.



The starting point for the unethical practice of paid news can be traced back to the 1991 advancement or liberalization of the Indian economy. Authors, editors, or journalists have often considered it worthwhile to write partly accurate reports with the influences of the economy at stake and public interest in private industries.

Several company schemes and plots exchanged promotional space for organizational equity in journals, and a large amount of these went up. Bennet Coleman and Company Ltd., publisher of the Times of India newspaper, started a paid service in 2003 to send writers out to cover occasions for a fee.


Another sketchy BCCL proposal involved private bargains in which BCCL would be given value as a by-product of promotion space by an agency. There was one author who, by those plans, uncovered the intersection between political and business elements in the news media. In October 2008, The Times of India ran a report about how no farmer suicides from two villages that had converted to GM seeds were accounted for, amid intense opposition to the administration giving consent to trials of genetically modified crops. A related story followed by a promotion torrent by GM giant Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech India was later republished in August 2011. Republishing 2011 was a wild-eyed campaign appeal to the failure of governments to table the GM bill in parliament.


Senior TV station Zee News editors were captured in 2012 for reportedly demanding Rs 100 crore from Jindal Power and Steel Ltd. In the coal trick, they promised to weaken their war against the company as an end-result of this pay-off. As JSPL administrator and Congress MP Naveen Jindal led an inverted sting on the system's administrators, the coercion was revealed.


India's Press Council has stalled its inclination towards paying reporting and other immoral work. A photojournalist warned the Council in April 2003 about the act of selling advertisements as news for a price. Instead of discussing the issue, the Council only asked media organizations to consider that their reputation was compromised and provided guidelines that they could obey to recognize news from commercials.

Likewise, the PCI refused to follow up on a swearing article on the media opposition using paying reporting. The Council retained its reference material instead of circulating the study because it could gouge the reputation of media houses! Only afterward, the report came into the open field based on a Right of Information appeal.


There is an emerging routine in the current media concerning disguising paying attention as actual news. Lobbyists or even remote powers will fill news sections with animated reports in this moment of monetary opening up, on the off risk that they can settle for the right PR / ad business. Shockingly, concerning selling news sections, the built-up ones with definitive showcase influence often enjoy this malevolent ritual of dishonest and immoral activity. Overstated TV and satellite news weights are seen as a reference for the more trivialization of news sections, which also advances further advertisement. There will be no real way to avoid that if the current trend carries on. Before it gets too late, we should be alive and at risk.

Recognizing how powerful and amazing the media have become now, regardless of whether print or electronic, their obligations to humanity have only grown. In reaching the point which the architects of the constitution had hoped for, the media will play a significant part. The writers are asked to note that during the fight for freedom, the glorious working media had played and set higher expectations for themselves. The country or the press association would not support the impersonation of Western media without valuing the setting of Indian Culture.

"Loved reading this piece by VVVVVVVV?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

Category Others, Other Articles by - VVVVVVVV