The 3-ratio test the Supreme Court uses to reject sweeping Article 32 petitions.

When the Supreme Court said 'No' to a media regulator

Reepak Kansal had a problem. He believed news channels were running amok — destroying reputations, conducting media trials, and interfering with the course of justice. So he did what any citizen with a constitutional grievance might do: he approached the Supreme Court of India directly, under Article 32, asking for a sweeping remedy. He wanted the Court to order the Central Government to create an independent Broadcast Regulatory Authority of India, to restrict media trials, and to prevent the misuse of airwaves.

The stakes were high. Not just for Kansal, but for every news channel in the country, and for the fundamental right to free speech itself. A single order could have reshaped the regulatory landscape of Indian broadcasting. But on August 8, 2023, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court — Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol — declined to entertain the petition. The Court said no. And the reasons it gave are a masterclass in judicial restraint.

The petition that asked for too much

Kansal filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 762 of 2020 directly in the Supreme Court. He invoked Article 32 — the constitutional remedy that allows any person to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. His prayers were broad: regulate broadcasting electronic channels, constitute a Broadcast Regulatory Authority, prevent the misuse of airwaves. A connected petition, WP (C) 1316 of 2020, raised similar issues.

The government, represented by the Union of India, had a ready answer. It pointed to an existing mechanism: a self-regulatory body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with civil society members, that already handled complaints against news channels. That body was Respondent No. 3 in the case. The government argued that the mechanism was working, and that the Court should not step in.

What the Court actually said

The Bench, authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, gave multiple reasons for refusing to entertain the petition. First, the prayers were too wide and sweeping. The Court observed that granting such broad relief would directly implicate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. That right, the Court noted, must be balanced — not overridden by a blanket regulatory order.

Second, the Court pointed to the existing self-regulatory mechanism. A retired Supreme Court judge was already heading a grievance-redressal body. Civil society members were part of it. The Court saw no reason to bypass that mechanism and impose a new regulatory structure through judicial fiat.

Third, the Court noted that it was already seized of related hate speech matters in separate proceedings. It did not want to duplicate or interfere with those ongoing cases.

For WP (C) 1316 of 2020, the Court added a fourth reason: the petitioner had an alternative remedy. He could approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition on that ground alone, reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court.

The doctrine that mattered: judicial restraint in Article 32

The ratio decidendi of this judgment is not about media regulation. It is about the limits of Article 32 itself. The Court laid down three clear propositions:

• RATIO 1: When prayers in an Article 32 petition are too wide and sweeping, the Court may decline to entertain the petition, especially where they implicate the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
• RATIO 2: Where an existing grievance-redressal mechanism headed by a retired Supreme Court judge with civil society representation is already in place, the Court may decline Article 32 jurisdiction and direct the petitioner to that mechanism.
• RATIO 3: Where a petitioner has the remedy of seeking an appropriate writ from the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court may decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 32 on that ground alone.

These are not new principles. But their application in the context of media regulation is significant. The Court refused to turn itself into a super-regulator for broadcasting. It reminded litigants that Article 32 is not a magic wand — it has limits, and those limits are enforced.

The obiter that litigants should note

The Court also made an observation that may prove useful in future cases. It said that the petitioner can always make a representation to the appropriate authorities pointing out alleged illegalities committed by news channels. This is not a binding direction, but it signals the Court's preference for administrative and regulatory remedies over direct judicial intervention in media regulation matters. If you are a litigant with a grievance against a news channel, this obiter tells you: go to the existing mechanism first. Do not rush to the Supreme Court.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder of the limits of Article 32. If your prayers are too broad, if an alternative remedy exists, or if a regulatory mechanism is already in place, the Supreme Court may simply refuse to hear you. The days of filing a sweeping PIL and expecting the Court to fix everything are over — at least in this context.

For CFOs and founders of media companies, this judgment is a reassurance. The Supreme Court has declined to impose a new regulatory authority. The existing self-regulatory mechanism, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, remains the primary forum for complaints. That mechanism is not perfect, but the Court has signaled that it is sufficient for now.

For the general public, this judgment is a reality check. If you believe a news channel has harmed your reputation or conducted a media trial, your remedy is not a direct petition to the Supreme Court. Your remedy is to approach the existing grievance-redressal mechanism, or to file a writ petition in the High Court. The Supreme Court will not be your first port of call.

THE PLAY: Before filing an Article 32 petition seeking regulation of broadcasting media, check whether an existing self-regulatory mechanism is already in place — if it is, the Supreme Court will likely direct you to that mechanism and decline to entertain your petition.

The bottom line

Reepak Kansal v. Union of India is not a landmark judgment on media regulation. It is a judgment on the limits of Article 32. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: it will not entertain sweeping prayers that implicate free speech, it will respect existing regulatory mechanisms, and it will insist on alternative remedies being exhausted. If you are planning to challenge a news channel's conduct, do not file in the Supreme Court. Go to the existing mechanism. Go to the High Court. The Supreme Court has spoken — and it has said no.