Penblunt & Hogwash

Lawyer's Paradise

PENBLUNT

I am soon going to become a lawyer, for sure!

Whether I want to or not.

Not a practicing lawyer, not even a law degree holder.

But the fact that this media business, especially TV has now so much to do with the courts, that I have per force to attend them, and to understand the legal battles, I have to sit down with lawyers and pick their brains.

They have got mighty bored with me by now, I must say. So usually these days, at the very sight of me they give this ‘court menace’ all that they can and enter the courtroom so they have some peace of mind!

Having done this for months, I am now fairly at hearing a case and midway be able to tell which party would most likely win. I can tell the mood of the expressionless judges from their body language, and so forth.

Like a case that is dealing with two broadcasters, who are also two separate and rival DTH operators: TataSky (read Star) and Dish TV (read Zee).

It is one of the most fascinating rallies of arguments I have heard, and I know which party will likely win. But I cannot say that, for that would be a massive contempt of court.

For months now, an erudite Sardarji and an equally erudite Tamil Brahmin have been at each others’ jugulars in court, though outside the court they share cups of tea and amusements. They are college mates, you see.

The crux of the matter is that Sardarji says his client can give its channels to TataSky but it must carry all its channels, and the Tamil Brahmin says, No, the law says that Sardarji’s client must provide all the channels but his client is not under obligation to must carry all of them.

The hearings have been a delectable curry of must provide and must carry. The arguments are over, and the right honourable judges have reserved their judgement for a later date.

But at the bottom of these arguments is a most seminal issue: the consumer’s choice. One party holds that on the DTH platform, because of space constraint on transponders, you cannot have must carry of “all the junk channels” that Sardarji’s client is providing, because that would use up all the space and leave nothing for other broadcasters who give popular channels… hence this is a denial of consumer choice.

The rival claim is that unless all his channels are compulsorily carried it amounts to denial of the consumer right of choosing from all the channels sardarji’s client is beaming for DTH platforms, and in any case the law says there is a must carry provision.

In effect, therefore, both parties are fighting for their sectarian interests but at the same time aiding my cause of right to entertainment.

It is interesting, therefore, to hear from both parties about an earlier judgement, in which the court had held that all DTH players must carry all the channels of all the broadcasters, otherwise the consumer is being denied a choice.

There has come a reinforcement from another corner: the framing of a law on the code of conduct for broadcasters.

The Union information and broadcasting ministry has apparently felt that adult content (not pornography, however) ought to be beamed but at late hours, when the kids have been put to bed.

The argument of the committee looking into this is, there are poor people who cannot afford the hugely expensive cinema hall tickets and so they are denied of their right to enjoy adult content!

This is OK by me, though I cannot see much weight in the argument behind late hours for adult content. Should kids grow up as adults without seeing bits of the adult world? This is the Internet and mobile phone age and kids are regularly watching porno stuff on MMSs and Internet.

But yet again, the emphasis is important: consumer choice, or the right to be entertained on a range of contents.

What surprised me, however, was that the court has already ruled that though strictly speaking, TV is not an essential commodity, seeing that there 68 million cable TV homes in this country, “it is almost an essential commodity”. Or so said the lawyers arguing this case.

This not just suits me, it is a vindication of my campaign: entertainment is fundamental issue and needs to be included as a fundamental right of the masses, and not just the upper classes.

Without the media, especially TV, there would be no reopening of the Jesicca Lall, or Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases or exposure of the ghastly Nithari killings.

I am sure shame would not dawn upon the shameless CPI (M) had TV not shown the unthinkable police brutality in Shingur and now Nandigram in West Bengal.

Yet, just ask yourself: what would the millions of people living in the slums do after work, had there been no TV?

The answer is simple: tell your cablewallah to switch off the cable from your home for a week, and you will realise why cable TV must be an essential commodity and entertainment a fundamental right!

Postcript: HEARD IN COURT

As most people know, mobile phones are supposed to be kept switched off inside court rooms.

During a recent hearing in Delhi High Court, a mobile phone started ringing sharply.

Judge (furiously): Whose mobile phone is that? Court Master, sieze it!

Lawyer (meekly): Milord, I dare say it is your mobile!
Judge (again furiously): Is it? (and he pulled it out from his pocket... the lawyer was right) Court Master... sieze it!