Who will define the ‘National Interest’?

The revised guidelines recently announced by the Central Government to promote and expand the Television
broadcasting to new horizons but these are not without riders. One new clause in the Union Government's updated
rules for uplinking and downlinking satellite TV channels, intended to make India a “teleport hub for other countries,” is
sure to spark debate. It states that TV channels must dedicate at least 30 minutes per day to programming that
promotes “public service and national interest.” The Cabinet has approved regulations that require TV channels to air
such content on eight themes: education and the promotion of literacy; agriculture and rural development; health and
family welfare; science and technology; welfare of women; welfare of the underprivileged; protection of the environment
and cultural heritage; and national integration. The decision is justified by the notion that “airwaves/frequencies are
public property and need to be utilised in the best interest of the society,” according to the policy statement by the
ministry.
The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has stated that TV broadcasters will be given time to conceptualise and
produce material on the eight themes even though the guidelines went into force on November 9. All channels must
follow the rules, with the exception of those that are foreign, focus on wildlife, or broadcast live sports. The ministry
states that it will ask a channel for an explanation if it is discovered to be non-compliant.
On the surface, there doesn't appear to be much wrong with the selection of the eight topics or even the
recommendation; after all, the concept of advancing “national interest” is unlikely to spark controversy as its
interpretation are always subjective. Thus, the main issue is how the term “national interest” should be used, and who
should be the final arbitrator in determining what this ambiguous concept implies.
For instance, although having quite different beliefs and approaches, all political parties would claim to be working to
protect the “national interest.” It goes without saying that the ruling dispensation would be the ultimate arbitrator of this
controversial issue and the loaded phrase, and this could result in punitive action against channels. Conversely, more adaptable
channels might convert this 30-minute content into commercials. Therefore, this term of ‘National Interest' should be broadly and
clearly defined leaving any ambiguity to be misused by the bureaucratic or political masters to hit those not pliable to official
policy. The ministry must be accommodating and allow it to be only a recommendation with no associated sanctions.