On the petition of actress Rakulpreet, the High Court directed the filing of a copy of the NBSA order


new Delhi, . The Delhi High Court has directed the filing of a copy of the order of the News Broadcasters Standards Authority (NBSA), while hearing his plea seeking a stay on the media reporting on Rakulpreet in the drugs case. A bench of Justice Naveen Chawla directed Rakulpreet to file an additional affidavit. The next hearing on the case will be held on 11 December.

The court ordered Prasar Bharati to be removed from the party’s list. The court, while recording the statement of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA), directed the filing of a copy of the NBSA order. During the hearing, lawyer Rahul Bhatia on behalf of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) said that we have taken Rakulpreet’s petition as a report. There are ten channels, we need three weeks to issue the order. Then the court said that three weeks is too much. It was said on behalf of the central government that our status report is on record. Advocate Aman Hingorani, on behalf of Rakulpreet, said that we are not satisfied with the Centre’s reply. The central government has placed its responsibility on the NBA. The Center did not take Rakulpreet’s petition as a report, he did not take any decision himself.

Hingorani said that I do not want to say anything against Prasar Bharati but I am opposing the demand to remove the Press Council from the party. The court then asked if the Press Council could control the electronic media. Hingorani then said that there are e-papers. He said that the e-paper is under whose jurisdiction, it is a confusion. The job of the Press Council is to maintain the journalistic standard. Advocate Shreya Sinha said on behalf of the Press Council that e-paper does not come under our jurisdiction. Hingorani then said that if the Press Council does not accept his advisory, he should be removed from the party. Then the court said that you said about the e-paper, have you said anything about the printed paper in the petition. If a media house has both an electronic channel and printed paper, then the Press Council will have jurisdiction over the channel as well.

The court issued a notice to the Central Government, NBA, Press Council on 29 September last. Will hear. The court had said that a unilateral order could not be ordered to stop reporting without listening to media institutions. During the hearing, the central government had said that Rakulpreet was not charged. On behalf of the Center, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma had said that Rakulpreet has been called to join the investigation. Currently, the ban order on media reports is not correct. This is a serious issue. There is a need to balance between Rakulpreet’s right and freedom of expression. The court had then said that the Central Government has the right under the Cable TV Act and cannot simply say that it is a sensitive issue.

During the hearing, Prasar Bharati had sought to remove himself from the list of parties, as he had nothing to do with the case. The court then asked lawyer Aman Hingorani, appearing for Rakulpreet, about the role of Prasar Bharati. Lawyer Aman Hingorani had said that fake news was being run which violated Rakulpreet’s right to privacy. He demanded a ban on the transmission of news related to Rakulpreet.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: