In a second major setback to the Media after the Nira Radia tapes exposed leading journalists blurring the lines between information gathering and influence peddling, the Supreme Court has underlined the need for introspection by castigating the news channels covering the Mumbai 2008 massacre for “totally wrong and unacceptable” professional conduct which made the security forces’ fight with the terrorists “exceedingly difficult”. As the apex court has articulated sentiments felt at the time by concerned citizens and government agencies, journalists should no longer defer the formulation of guidelines to regulate professional conduct in situations of national calamity.
In their 400-page judgment dismissing the appeal of Mohammad Amir Ajmal Kasab [Criminal Appeal Nos.1899-1900 OF 2011], Justices Aftab Alam and C.K. Prasad upheld the death penalty on the Pakistani national for his role in the massacre at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, and castigated the television reportage of the carnage.
The bench dismissed arguments justifying the television coverage under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression, ruling that: “An action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression”.
The bench noted that transcripts of terrorists’ conversations intercepted by intelligence agencies from Taj Hotel, Hotel Oberoi and Nariman House reveal that the terrorists hiding within and their controllers across the border availed of television news and visuals to learn that Kasab had been caught alive; and that high ranking police officers had been killed in the attack.
The transcripts show the terrorists and their masterminds mocking at speculation by reporters that the dead body found in the Kuber fishing vessel belonged to the leader of the terrorist group; he was thought to have been murdered by his colleagues for unknown reasons before they quit the craft.
The transcripts show the terrorists at Hotel Taj tell their bosses that they had thrown a grenade. They are told, “the sound of the grenade has come, they have shown the grenade, the explosion has taken place, people are wounded”. Another time the Pakistani masters tell the terrorists at Hotel Oberoi that Indian troops were strengthening their position on the roof of the building. They tell terrorists at Taj Hotel the exact position taken by policemen close to a building belonging to the navy, from where they were firing at the terrorists. The controllers advised the terrorists regarding the best position for hitting hit back at the policemen.
The judges also expressed unhappiness that the goriest details of the terrorist attacks were shown live on Indian TV, virtually non-stop. This “reckless coverage” of the attack gave rise to a situation where, while the terrorists were completely hidden from the security forces who had no way of knowing their exact position or the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed, the attackers learnt of the positions of the security forces, their weapons and all their operational movements from our free media.
Contrast this with the American media’s suo moto blanket ban on gory visuals of the attack on Twin Towers in New York in September 2001. The apex court concedes that it is not possible to say if security forces actually suffered any casualty or injuries because of this exposure of their operations on TV, but it certainly made their job more difficult and dangerous.
In these circumstances, the apex court feels the TV channels cannot be excused by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression. Actions endangering the lives of vulnerable hostages and security forces are indefensible.
The visuals taken by the TV channels could easily have been shown after the operation was over. But that, the judges note, would have denied the programmes the shrill, scintillating and chilling effect they achieved by live coverage, which shot up their TRP ratings. In the process, the Indian TV channels did a disservice to the nation and the victims.
Extreme events like Mumbai 2008 test the credibility of institutions. The judgment notes with dismay that the Mumbai terror attack coverage by the electronic media damaged the media demand that it should regulate itself. Clearly the media has much to think about.
Excerpts from Supreme Court’s judgement of Wednesday, August 29, 2012:
AN OBITER: Role of the media
402. Before parting with the transcripts, we feel compelled to say a few words about the way the terrorist attacks on Taj Hotel, Hotel Oberoi and Nariman House were covered by the mainstream, electronic media and shown live on the TV screen. From the transcripts, especially those from Taj Hotel and Nariman House, it is evident that the terrorists who were entrenched at those places and more than them, their collaborators across the border were watching the full show on TV. In the transcripts there are many references to the media reports and the visuals being shown on the TV screen. The collaborators sitting in their hideouts across the border came to know about the appellant being caught alive from Indian TV: they came to know about the killing of high ranking police officers also from Indian TV. At one place in the transcript, the collaborators and the terrorists appear to be making fun of the speculative report in the media that the person whose dead body was found in Kuber was the leader of the terrorist group whom his colleagues had killed for some reason before leaving the boat. At another place in the transcript the collaborators tell the terrorists in Taj Hotel that the dome at the top (of the building) had caught fire. The terrorists holed up in some room were not aware of this. The collaborators further advise the terrorists that the stronger they make the fire the better it would be for them. At yet another place the terrorists at Hotel Taj tell the collaborators that they had thrown a grenade. The Collaborators reply, “The sound of the grenade has come, they have shown the grenade, the explosion has taken place, people are wounded”. At yet another place the collaborators tell the terrorists at Hotel Oberoi that the troops were making their position very strong on the roof of the building. At yet another place the collaborators tell the terrorists at Taj Hotel the exact position taken by the policemen (close to a building that belonged to the navy but was given to the civilians) and from where they were taking aim and firing at them (the terrorists) and advised them the best position for them to hit back at those policemen. There are countless such instances to show that the collaborators were watching practically every movement of the security forces that were trying to tackle the terrorists under relentless gun fire and throwing of grenades from their end.
403. Apart from the transcripts, we can take judicial notice of the fact that the terrorists attacks at all the places, in the goriest details, were shown live on the Indian TV from beginning to end almost non-stop. All the channels were competing with each other in showing the latest developments on a minute to minute basis, including the positions and the movements of the security forces engaged in flushing out the terrorists. The reckless coverage of the terrorist attack by the channels thus gave rise to a situation where on the one hand the terrorists were completely hidden from the security forces and they had no means to know their exact position or even the kind of firearms and explosives they possessed and on the other hand the positions of the security forces, their weapons and all their operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on TV screens and being communicated to the terrorists.
404. In these appeals, it is not possible to find out whether the security forces actually suffered any casualty or injuries on account of the way their operations were being displayed on the TV screen. But it is beyond doubt that the way their operations were freely shown made the task of the security forces not only exceedingly difficult but also dangerous and risky.
405. Any attempt to justify the conduct of the TV channels by citing the right to freedom of speech and expression would be totally wrong and unacceptable in such a situation. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions. An action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression.
406. The shots and visuals that were shown live by the TV channels could have also been shown after all the terrorists were neutralized and the security operations were over. But, in that case the TV programmes would not have had the same shrill, scintillating and chilling effect and would not have shot up the TRP ratings of the channels. It must, therefore, be held that by covering live the terrorists attack on Mumbai in the way it was done, the Indian TV channels were not serving any national interest or social cause. On the contrary they were acting in their own commercial interests putting the national security in jeopardy.
407. It is in such extreme cases that the credibility of an institution is tested. The coverage of the Mumbai terror attack by the mainstream electronic media has done much harm to the argument that any regulatory mechanism for the media must only come from within.
– 31 August 2012
http://www.niticentral.com/2012/08/its-official-media-helped-2611-terrorists.html