No. 804/1 51/2014-BG-lllGOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING.A' WING. SHASTRI BHAWAN,

NEW DELHI - 11OOO1

Dated the 12th MaY, 2015

WARNING

Whereas it had been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

that Sathiyam TV channeitelecast programmes 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM' and

'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' on 9.12.2014 at 6.30 am and 8.31 am.

Whereas both the programmes appeared to violate certain provisions of the Programme

Code orescribed under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules

framed thereunder, the details of which are as under:

(l)Telecast of 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM' on 9-12.2014 at 6-30 a.m.

Sathiyam TV channel broadcast a talk on Bible by a preacher of the Christian faithat 6-30 a.m. On 9.12.2014, towards the end of the talk, the preacher, whileadministering prayer to the followers mentioned one line several times in Tamilwhich is re-produced as under:

"lnde Pollada Manisharai Inda Ulagathilindre Tuke Appa Inde Pollada Manisharaiavan Pillaigal Oode Tuke Appa." The meaning of these lines implies that : "Oh,

lord! Remove this satanic person from this world!l Oh lordl Remove this personalong with his sons (supporters) away from me." This part of the reference wasfrom the Time Code 06.48 onwards for about three minutes.

The programme 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM', apparently made reference toa 'dreadful man' as a threat to Christianity by one preacher of Christian faith. Suchstatements being broadcast from a religious preacher appeared to be targeting apolitical leader and could potentially give rise to a communally sensitive situationand incite the public to violent tendencies which would be conducive to law andorder situation. Altogether, this appeared to violate Rule 6(1) (c ), (d), (e) & (i) ofthe Programme Code.

(ll)Telecast of 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' on 9.12.2014 at 8:31 a.m.

The channel telecast a programme 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' which isbasically a discussion on the news published in various newspapers in the state.Senior journalist who participated in the discussion made some statements againstthe Prime Minister.

Anchor : MDMK breaks alliance with BJP was one of the major news yesterday.Senior journalist: We have to agree the fact that Modi is a good speaker whybecause he is capable of making the people believe in false statement. He startedhis campaign in such a way before the Lok Sabha elections and,that islhe reason

/ v\_LLJlai,,,(+1^=r i.{r.,Til /''

(NEETt S/'\RI<AR)Ftrr6/Dire cto t

LTq:n \rr1 qqr{ r c_"qF.!rMln. of InformE!ion & .Br.-:d.castingr{l=l ljldr{, :i{ lia. :l

Covl. of Inil::, l.srtr O6l:i

why vaiko believed in him thinking that he would find a solution to all the problems

in tlre state and it was Vaiko who t6ok the initiative to make an alliance with BJP" '

Anchor : Prime Minister's rally at samba, J&K has been talked about largely in

social media.senior journalist: I had told the same view earlier also. To succeed in politics you

need to have the ability to convert a false statement in to true and above all make

the people believe the statement ... . .

Anchor': Ghulam Nabi Azad's statement that the location where PM's rally was

scheduled has a capacity of 4500 - 5000 but only 2500 people actually took part

in the rally. There is no vision glass fashioned in the entire world which can

magnify a crowd of 2500 people to one lakh people.

senior' journalist: In Tamil Nadu, leaders bring people along with them as

addressees to show immense strength in the rally. This tradition was less in the

North. Now Modi's tricks are that before he comes to address a rally, viewers are

made available at the location They also have the media who actually

convert the original numbers into wrong ones.

Thus, in the programme'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM' while discussing thepolitical situation in Tamil Nadu in the backdrop of the severance of alliance

between MDMK and BJP, one senior journalist participating in the News Analysisalleged that Prime Minister engineered crowds at his rallies and also influencedthe media to project an incorrect picture as true. He accused the P.M. of using his

oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements. The statementsappeared to defame a person without any substantiation. lt appeared to malignand slander the Prime Minister which was repugnant to the esteemed office that heholds and therefore, appeared to violate Rule 6(1Xd) & (i) of the ProgrammeCode.

Whereas the aforesaid Programmes appeared to violate the following provisions of theProgramme Code contained in aforesaid Rule 6:

Rule 6(1) (c) No programme should be carried in the cable service which contains attackon religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or whichpromote communal attitudes;Rule 6(1) (d) No programme should be carried in the cable service which containsanything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and halftruths;Rule 6(1) (e) No programme should be carried in the cable service which is likely toencourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and orderor which promote-anti-national attitudes;Rule 6(1) (i) No programme should be carried in the cable service which criticizes,maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, publicand moral life of the country;

Whereas, according to basic conditions/obligations of permission/approval forUplinking/Downlinking of a news and current affairs TV Channel in India wherebypermission to downlink Sathiyam TV Channel has been granted, the channel was boundto follow the Programme Code and Advertising Code prescribed under theaforementioned AcURules; and in the event of failure to comply with any of the terms andconditions, permission/approval granted was liable to be suspended/ cancelled;

tvtgLi-t2-/ eltS

(;irE; r:,_.i-., r<i(NEETt saRK-AR)Flrre ,zo lre cto,

q€r qc1 tn'l-{!! TafdqMtn. ot Inform6tion & -A@actcs.rngqifd (.{6rr, T€ H

covr. or lnd. :, l,sv. Octhi

whereas a snow cause notice (scN) was issued on 16.12.2014 calling upon sathiyam

TV channel to show cause within 15 days from receipt of this communication as to why

action as per the provisions of Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines,, the terms and

conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of section 20 of the cable Act

should not be taken against it;

whereas, responding to the SCN, Sathiyam TV channel, vide letter dated 17.122014'

submitted thai there is a false and baseless allegation without any substantiation; as far

as Ungal Aseervatha Neram, the segment that is quoted in the scN contains an

iu.ngltirt pr"ying to God for persons who are weak, sick and persons who are subjected

to unnecessary oppresston by persons inimical towards them and it was a prayer for

protecting them from such oppression. The channel stated that it was a general prayer

ior p"rson. in a depressed mood due to such things in life; about somebody praying to

God for social harmony and prosperity and protection of an individual, and further' they

stated that even taking the programme in entirety there was absolutely no mention against

the Hon'ble and respected Prime Minister either in person or the office that he holds. The

channel stated in their reply that if any such interpretation was being advised to the

Ministry, it could only be a sinuous attempt to unnecessarily imagine something and drag

him into an ill-advised controversy aimed at tarnishing the good office that he holds and

alienating him from sections of the society. With regard to "Paarthathum Padithathum",the channel explained that the programme was about discussions on interpretations ofnews and stories in that day's editions of popular newspapers and the persons on thescreen were discussing the fragmentation of a political alliance in the state of Tamil Nadu

and about the reference made by Mr. Gulam Nabi Azad about the PM's public meeting in

Kashmir. The channel clarified that the quoted reference to the Prime Minister was in facta metaphorical acclamation of his communication skills as a politician. The channel failedto see how a metaphorical compliment could qualify (as violation) under sections of theCode quoted in the SCN; they opined that the entire episode appeared to be an attemptto drive a wedge between the Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the fourth pillar ofan established and thriving democracy; they also fear this to be an ill-advised attempt toproject as if they intended to disrupt social and religious harmony by dragging the highestlevels of their governance, into a controversy that they certainly did not deserve; theyclarified that they were one of the very few vernacular television channels that did nothave a political leaning and one of the fewer still, when it came to credible and unbiasednews dissemination. The channel requested the Ministry to treat the matter as closedand refrain from engaging whoever ill-advised it thus and also stated that in the event anyfurther explanation or clarification was required from their side apart from this reply, theywere prepared to appear in person and clarify their side;

Whereas, in keeping with the principles of Natural Justice the channel was granted anopportunity for a personal hearing to present their case before IMC on 1 3.01 .2015;

Whereas Sathiyam TV channel sent an email dated 9.1.2015 requesting for adjournmentof personal hearing. They submitted that their General Manager who was dealing withthe subject matter was on sick leave and due to ensuing Pongal festival in Tamilnadu,they were unable to appear for personal hearing. They requested that a next date maybe given or that the personal hearing may be fixed on the next date of the IMC meeting;

Al . " l-.-. vvL!-):__,..l2'l> l,)

(;'r.,i r': .'-i'')(NEETI SARKAR)

ftlYF/D ire cto r

qnir gctl qqr{q qardqf i,n. of Inrormatron A.APadca3ting

qri_t ti,-,B'r{. _E IqGnGovi, cf Inil:, fls'./ Dclhi

whereas, since the channel expressed its helplessness to attend the hearing on

i S.Of .ZOi S, the IMC noted that the channel may be given another opportunity to appear

t- in"I""iing. In view of submission made bySathiyam TV channel, the IMC deferred

the matter to the next date;

whereas the channel was granted an opportunity for personal hearing before the IMC on

06.02.2015. This time re[resentatives of the channel appeared before the lMC. The

IMC went through the material on record, written reply of the channel and also previewed

the CD recording of both of the said programmes;

whereas with respect to the programme 'UNGAL ASEERVATHA NERAM" the IMC

inquired of the repiesentatives of the channel whether this programme was a reading of

a story from the Bible or the preacher was interpreting it in his ow1 w91ds. The

reores'entatives clarified that the preacher was interpreting this story from the Bible. They

further stated that the words "lnde Pollada Manisharai Inda Ulagathilindre Tuke Appa

Inde Pollada Manisharai avan Pillaigal Oode Tuke Appa" were not exactly used in theprogramme and it had also not been literally translated. They clarified that the preacher

wal simply referring to the children who were oppressed and were in need of upliftmentand the'reference was to Daniel, being oppressed by superiors and that is straight from

the Bible. The representative also stated that they did not mean to refer to any political

leader in the programme. Nor did they intend to attack any community;

Whereas, with regard to the programme 'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM" therepresentatives of the channel stated that the programme was based on news reportspublished in various newspapers in the state in the context of J&K Assembly elections.Senior journalist who participated in the discussion also made some comments hadstated that the P.M. used his oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements.The representatives stated that the journalist had the right to freedom of expression underArticle 19(1) of the Constitution of India and the programme was conducted keeping thisview in mind. They also stated that no objective standards were employed bythe Ministryas to how the language used was likely to be derogatory to any person;

Whereas, the representatives of the channel also submitted a representation dated6.2.2015 in which it was indicated that the programme titled 'Ungal Aseervatha Neram',which translated to, "Your Blessing Time". lt was an early morning broadcast containinga prayer and ran for a period of half an hour from 6.30 am till 7.00 am. As per the channel,the said prayer did not make any political references or any reference to any individual;the translation relied upon was inaccurate and was in total contradiction to the messageand meaning conveyed in the prayer made by the person; it was blatantly misconstruedand misunderstood. The channel stated that the SCN contained several vagueallegations with respect to the broadcast; that the allegations were factually inaccuratefor which reference should first be had to the correct transcript and that the relevantportion which had been quoted in the SCN was inaccurate. They opined thatthe allegedphrase mentioned in the SCN was never used in the broadcast and even otheMise, astray sentence, phrase or word could not be taken in consideration. They stated that theentire theme and context of the broadcast had to be examined holistically. lt was furthermentioned in the representation that the second programme which was in issue, wastitled "Paarthathum Padithathum" which translated to, "What you saw, what you read".As per the channel, it was a morning broadcast containing comments and opinions onthe basis of newspaper reports of that day. In this programme, the channel stated that a

/l4JrL1_tltrS("i in l:::r,-;;.*l ' -

(NEE-rt s^'Ri-<AE)FarElJ , ,e c. o r

qq=;n \qq e!{rirl q.r-,.nqltin. of Intormari(_rr .1 6r.a,r.astina

,,. !.r J, ,, !.....tc.!:. .', t..

reporter and a panellist discussed newspaper reports and offered analysis on it for a'pJrUlt

n"ft "n

hour from 8.30 am till 9.00 am. As per the channel, the discussion in the

piog;rr" was with reference to a statement made by a politician from J&K during the

miOit of State Elections and these remarks were widely reported in the national and the

io""f pr"". and electronic media and hence, were in the public domain The channel

submitted that till date, no action for defamation had been initiated to their knowledge

"g.i."i tfri" statemeni. Further they opined that the statements which had been

c;mplained of should be seen from the perspective of balanced criticism. They added

that in the same broadcast, the panelist in reply to a query also referred to the Hon'blepM. as "eloquent". Viewed holistically, the channel felt the broadcast was a balanced

criticism of a public figure and a popular politician;

whereas, considering that the submitted documents required examination, the IMC

recommended to consider the matter in the next IMC meeting;

whereas, the matter was again put up before the IMC meeting held on 24.02.2015. lt was

observed by the IMC that sathiyam TV channel broadcast a talk ('UNGAL ASEERVATHANERAM') on Bible by a preacher (Brother Appadurai) of the Christian faith at 6-30 a.m.

on 9.12.2014 and towards the end of the talk, the preacher administered a prayer to thefollowers. During the course of the prayer, Brother Appadurai stated, "Just because ofone dreadful man the entire community has become weak. That man and his supportersare advancing towards us and I am unable to stand against him. Under mental stress I

am looking at you. Oh God! Save our children from their hands and given them strengthand hope.". The IMC noted that referring to Daniel when the prayer starts, suddenlythere is a line "dreadful man.. . " ; and during the prayer for humanity the reference to thedreadful man sounded out of place and out of context. The IMC opined that during theprayer Brother Appadurai has couched a negative statement inside his prayer with anoblique reference to one individual, whether attributed to one particular political leader orany other person in his otherwise mass religious service; and that in the name of Danielunder whom Brother Appadurai tries to take refuge, has packed unsavoury andunwarranted words that evoke feeling of hatred by projecting one person as a dreadfulman. The IMC felt that this statement was uncalled for and has implicit potential to sowenmity between communities in the country and thereby, violative of the ProgrammeCode. As regards another programme'PAARTHATHUM PADITHATHUM', the IMC notedthat the programme was based on news reports published in various newspapers in thestate in the context of J&K Assembly elections. One senior iournalist who participatedin the discussion was shown making comments that one particular political leader usedhis oratorical skills to make people believe his false statements. The IMC felt that newsreport telecast by the channel deliberately put a finger on somebody without any plausiblereasons;

Whereas, having regard to the material on record, preview of the CD, the written and oralsubmissions of the channel and totality of the circumstances, IMC concluded thatSathiyam channel has violated the Programme Code by telecasting the saidprogrammes. Accordingly, the IMC recommended that a "Warning" may be issuedto the channel to strictly abide by the Programme and Advertising Code and to bemore careful in future;

^t t-/Ll lL t'' --...-:t 2,l5l t s

(NEETt SI\Ri<1P.)ii|.sr6/D ir€ ci. r

lF,-f,r !-sl Finr5r ii-'nrTqi,!tn, .f !.forTai:.rn &.-rr. .:asrrng

1:.i.:: ii . :, ... ,

ai ':- t)l ':

whereas, as per para 5.2 of the Guidelines for uplinking from India, one of the basic

"onJition"tourigations of the company permitted to uplink registered channels is that the

iorp"ny shalicomply with the Piogramme Code prescribed under the Cable Television

Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder;

whereas, as per para 8.1 of the said guidelines, in the event of a channel found to have

been/being used for transmitting any objectionablei unauthorized content inconsistent

with publiJ interest, the Central Government has the power to revoke the permission

granted;

whereas, as per para 8.2 of the said uplinking guidelines, the central Government has

the power to impose penalties for violation of any of the terms and conditions or otherprovisions of the said guidelines;

whereas, in case of violation of Programme code this Ministry have powers to suspendthe permission of uplinking granted to a company for a period of 30 days in the event offirst viofation as per para 8.2.1 , tor 90 days in the event of second violation as per para

8.2.2 and revocation of permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to theremaining period of permission in the event of third violation as per para 8.2.3 of the saiduplinking guidelines;

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 expedientso to do in the interest of the (i) sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or(iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency ormorality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of anychannel or programme;

Whereas the Competent Authority, having considered all the facts and circumstances ofthe case, including the recording, the oral and written submissions of the Channel, therecommendations of the lMC, the provisions of the Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, has come to the conclusion thatthere was a clear violation of Rule 6(1Xc), (d), (e ) & (i) of the Programme Code; and thatthe channel was supposed to telecast such nature of content with care, caution andsensitivity;

Now, Therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, as explained above,the Competent Authority in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, in exercise ofpowers under the Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines issued by it, the terms of permissiongranted to uplink/downlink the TV channel and under Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of theCable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereby warns Sathiyam TV channelto strictly adhere to the Programme and Advertising Codes and to be more carefulwith regard to content to be telecast on the channel.

strict compliance with the above direction should be ensured by sathiyam. TV channel'

Ail;;iil.h"tt entait such action against SathiyamW channel 1s deemed fit in

#il;;; with the Cable Television Nltwork (Regulation) Act, ]995 and the Rules

iramed thereunder as also the terms and conditions of the permission/approval granted

under uplinking/downlinking guidelines. ^t F/ffi1,p1,s

INEETI SARKARIDirector (BC)

Tele. 23386536

(+R r*{-€1-g)(NEETI SARKAR)

fr|lto/Directorqq-fl qq rqriq Tartiq

Mln. of Inlormatton & Baoadcaatinacr.i cr.r!, q{ ffi

Govt. ot lndta, N€w O.thl

Managing Director,M/s. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd.'No.1, Kamaraj Park Street'Kalmandapam, RoYaPuram,P.O. Box 553,Chennai - 600 013

Gopy to : Electronic Media Monitoring centre, Electronic Media Monitoring centre, (Shri

i.H.Vsna*anath, ADG), Ministry oilnformation & Broadcasting, 1Oth Floor, Soochna

gh"*"n, Lodhi Road, C'CO Comirtex, New Delhi - for kind information and necessary

action.