[cr-india] litigation on CR

[Subbu Vincent]

Vickram,

The problem is that matter of who must conduct radio broadcast 
regulation in
India and how has not been truly settled in law. (Some will say 'this is 
how things
work').

Also, I think responsible lawyers seem to differ on the question of 
litigation.
If you looked at the country study paper published by VOICES in 2002 at 
least
one media lawyer had a different take on how to avoid risks of PIL and still
test the SC on it.

Is it too much to link aggrieved parties of CR licensing alone to 
litigation for
reform in broadcast regulation itself? Perhaps. By not suing, the 
parties are as
much saying so. But it also looks like many in the movement feel that 
its better to
get some licenses out of this adhoc MIB regime and figure out the rest 
later,
as opposed to settling the matter in judiciary. At one level, that looks 
reasonable.

But it is worrying that we rely on the 1995 ruling for much of our 
rhetoric and yet
place little faith in the very body that issued the ruling. Is the case 
so weak that
the risk of loss is high? This, especially when a number of original 
stipulations on
broadcast regulation by the Supreme Court are still under violation. And 
in the
meantime everyone else -- from the right to information camp to 
forest/environmental
conservation groups and the right to food groups and sundry others, 
challenge govt
violations in the SC regularly, and even win.

There was some talk of a national radio association/academy. Has one been
formed?
-Subbu

Vickram Crishna wrote:

> At 4:57 PM -0400 25/8/05, Subbu Vincent wrote:
>
>> In asking this, I realise that a lawsuit is not a joke. It's serious. 
>> That's why I am
>> asking a group that is running radio programs and could do very well 
>> with a
>> license and not a supporter of the CR movement in general. That the 
>> denial
>> of CR is rooted in the current non-statutory policy-driven broadcast 
>> regime
>> coming from the government is in defiance of the 1995 SC ruling seems 
>> undisputed
>> too. An aggrieved party like KMVS could sue or join cause with other 
>> aggrieved
>> groups and sue. But it is August 2005, and no one has.
>
>
> Speaking for ourselves, Radiophony, one reason we have not, even 
> though we are an aggrieved party from just one step away, is advice 
> from lawyers that one does not approach the SC (on Constitutional 
> issues) unless one is pretty well certain of succeeding - and 
> definitely not if the judgment that emerges may be going to make 
> things worse.
>
> I tend to think that KMVS is also in a slightly problematic situation 
> since AIR does not refuse (for a fat sum of money) to grant them air 
> time. That it is both expensive and not as fruitful as it could be had 
> they complete control of their own channel(s) (take a look at the map 
> - Kutch is *huge*) may not cut as much ice with the SC as the country 
> needs.
>