The Madras High Court on Tuesday, June 20, 2023, wanted to know why the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly cannot be telecast at the end of every business day after removing only the portions that had been expunged from the records. The question was raised during the hearing of a case which complained of highly selective telecast of the proceedings after removing questions raised by the opposition members.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu also wanted to know when Speaker M. Appavu had told the House that “it is not possible to live telecast, immediately, the speeches of the frontline leaders made during Zero Hour. It is only possible to live telecast the speeches if it is unanimously assured by all the party leaders that the subject alone would be discussed on the floor of the House.”
Since Assembly Secretary K. Srinivasan, in his additional counter affidavit to a couple of writ petitions, had quoted the Speaker as having also told the House that “live telecasting is under the consideration of the Chair” but had not mentioned the date on which statement was made, the judges asked Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram to ascertain by June 26 the exact date when the Speaker had said so in the Assembly.
The interim order was passed on a writ petition filed by Lok Satta Party State president D. Jagadheeswaran in 2012 and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) leader A. Vijayakant in 2015 insisting upon live telecast of the Assembly proceedings. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) chief whip and former Minister S.P. Velumani had filed an impleading petition now complaining of selective telecasting.
Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Mr. Velumani, told the court that much water had flown after the filing of the two main writ petitions in 2012 and 2015. Now, a mobile app titled National eVidhan Application (NeVA) had made it possible for any individual to view the proceedings of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha as well as all Legislative Assemblies across the country at the click of a button on their mobile phones.
However, in Tamil Nadu, only truncated portions of the Assembly proceedings were being telecast on the app and the questions raised by the opposition members were being edited out, he complained. The A-G raised strong objection to the impleading petition and said, the petitioner who was a Minister when the main writ petitions were filed in 2012 and 2015 could not now side in favour of the two writ petitioners because of a change in regime.
Following the objection, Mr. Narayan said, his client would file a separate writ petition to vent his grievance. Subsequently, the A-G told the court that the Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings’ first hour known as Question Hour was being telecast live in its entirety since January 6, 2022 and the discussion on call attention motions and also on important resolutions, moved in the House, were also being telecast live from April 12, 2023.
Apart from the live telecast, all items of business of the House were covered in the edited video footage provided to television channels within a few hours of the Assembly proceedings. The edited footage contained the speeches delivered by members of all political parties, including those in the treasury benches as well as the opposition, he said. The A-G also stated that the Speaker would be the final authority to decide on telecast of the proceedings.
Referring to Article 122 of the Constitution, he contended that a decision taken by the Speaker with respect to telecasting certain proceedings of the House and not telecasting certain others could not be questioned by the courts.
