{TRP Scam Case}
Facts
The controversy also known as “TRP Scam Case.” Where in 2020, Mumbai Police arrested several individuals including Republic TV and its editor Arnab Goswami and former employees of rating agency BARC {Broadcast Audience Research Council}. The investigation revealed that some of the channels were using unwanted means to manipulate ratings which includes bribery, false data, etc. The scam has caused loss over ₹40,000 crore to industry.
Legislative Background
This case have significant legislative background which includes, The Cable Television Networks [Regulation] Act, 1995, which provide regulatory powers, licensing, registration, advertisement, consumer protection to cable television industry. Also includes rating regulation, fraud and criminal law such as IPC 1860, CrPc, 1973 and specific sections of IPC such as IPC Section 409 [Criminal Breach Of Trust], IPC Section 420 [Cheating and Dishonesty], IPC Section 120b [Criminal Conspiracy], etc.
Issues
- Manipulation of TV rating to increase advertising revenue which also said as TRP manipulation.
- Republic TV’s claim of political grudge and attack on press freedom questions the freedom of press.
- Debates about the application of criminal laws, such as IPC Sections 409 and 420, to rating manipulation.
- Question were put forth about methods used by the agencies and handling the evidence of the investigation.
- Questions were put forth about the effectiveness of regulatory bodies like BARC and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in preventing rating manipulation.
- Generation of concerns about the ethics of television broadcasting, including the responsibility to accurately report ratings and maintain viewer trust.
- Allegations were made of political interference in investigation and legal processes.
- Speculations about rivalries between media organizations and their role in the case.
Contention
Prosecution’s Contention
Intentional Manipulation: The accused channels and individuals knowingly manipulated the TRP system to artificially inflate their viewership numbers, misrepresenting their popularity to attract more advertisers and revenue.
Regulatory Failure: The case highlights the failure of the regulatory body to prevent the scam, detect fraud, necessitating stricter regulations, monitoring, and enforcement to prevent future manipulation.
Fraudulent Activities: The scam involve the range of fraudulent activities with barometers to watch specific channels and exploiting vulnerabilities in TRP system to gain a biased advantage.
Erosion of Viewers Trust: The scam eroded viewers trust in media with leads to decrease in viewership, loss of credibility, and damaging the reputation of media industry.
Unfair Advantage: By manipulating TRP ratings, the accused channels gained an unfair advantage over other channels, attracting more advertisers and revenue, while smaller channels suffered.
Defense’s Contention
Lack of Evidence: The prosecution’s case relies on circumstantial evidence, unreliable witnesses and assumptions and also lacks to prove intentional manipulation.
Technical Glitches: The TRP system is prone to technical glitches, errors and fluctuations which may result in irregularities in ratings, rather than intentional manipulation.
Regulatory Overreach: The regulatory bodies are overreaching their authority, attempting to control the media industry and limits the competition and innovation.
No Unfair Advantage: As the TRP system is subject to fluctuations, the accused channels didn’t gain an unfair or biased advantage and other channels may have also benefited from errors and glitches.
No Harm Caused:By manipulating TRP ratings, the accused channels gained an unfair advantage over other channels, attracting more advertisers and revenue, while smaller channels suffered.
Other’s Contention
Need for Reforms: The case highlights the need for reforms in TRP system and regulatory media which includes transparency, accountability and enforcement to prevent future manipulation.
Conflict of Interest: The involvement of other stakeholders and BARC raises the question about conflict of interest as they may have benefited from the scam taken place or have connecting interest in maintaining the status quo.
Lack of Transparency: The TRP system lacks transparency making it exposed to manipulation, demands reform to increase accountability and oversight.
Rationale
Freedom of Speech and Expression: Argument was done by Republic TV that their reporting was protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. They also claimed that their reporting was legitimate and did not violate any laws and regulations.
Public order and National security: The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the media industry, as it sets a precedent for the limits of press freedom in India.They claimed that the reporting had the potential to harm the country’s interests and compromise public safety. The Maharashtra Government had argued that Republic TV’s reporting compromised national security.
Defamation: The government alleged that Republic TV’s reporting was defamatory and harmed the reputation of the state and its officials.They claimed that the reporting was untrue and malicious, and intended to harm the government’s reputation.
Constitutional Balance: The Supreme Court was compelled to balance the interests of freedom of speech and expression, national security and public order. The court has to consider whether government actions were reasonable and justified or whether they violate Republic TV’s fundamental rights.
Defects of Law
Lack of Clarity: There is no presence of clear definition of what includes TRP manipulation and fraud. The laws and regulations governing the TRP system are open to interpretation and are vague too.
No specific provision: No presence of specific law that criminalize TRP manipulation. The laws which are present are general in nature and do not shows or specify TRP fraud.
Insufficient framework: There is no comprehensive legislation that specifically addresses TRP manipulation. The current existing legal framework does not provide adequate provisions to deal with the complexities of TRP fraud.
Limited jurisdiction: There may be conflicts between different regulatory bodies over who has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute TRP fraud cases. The regulatory bodies may not have the necessary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute TRP fraud cases.
No independent oversight: There may be no independent oversight mechanism to monitor the TRP system and prevent fraud. The regulatory bodies may not have the necessary independence or resources to effectively monitor the TRP system.
Inference
The TRP Scam case has broad implications, which reveals the complex web of manipulation in the television rating industry. It also highlights the conflicts of interest among regulatory body. The scandal exposes the vulnerability of TRP system to tamper, where TV channels and agencies can artificially inflate their rating to attract the crowd and advertising contract.
The global implication of TRP scam are significant. The scandal weakens the trust in advertising industries and media landscape world widely. Ultimately the case shows the need of international cooperation to combat TRP fraud and ensure fair and transparent media landscape where quality content are valued and manipulative rating is underrated and not seen as good measure.
Sakshi Vilas Khobragade
DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune