Criminal Liability For Bribery In Media Broadcasting Licenses
I. Introduction
Bribery in media broadcasting licenses refers to offering, accepting, or soliciting illegal payments or favors to obtain or renew licenses for television, radio, or digital broadcasting. This undermines transparency, fair competition, and public trust.
Such actions can lead to criminal liability under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, and IT Act, especially when government officials are involved.
II. Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 161 & 165 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
Section 171E – Bribery in elections; can be analogously applied to regulatory approvals.
Section 420 – Cheating by dishonestly inducing delivery of license or money.
Section 463–471 – Forgery if license documents are falsified.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)
Section 7 – Public servant taking gratification for official acts.
Section 8 – Taking gratification to influence another public servant.
Section 9 – Abetment of offences under PCA.
Broadcasting Laws
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
Information Technology Act, 2000 (for digital broadcasting licenses and online payments)
III. Key Elements of Criminal Liability
Gratification – Money, gifts, or favors given or promised to influence licensing decisions.
Public Official Involvement – Often the licensing authority or regulatory officer.
Intent to Influence – Bribe must aim to obtain illegal advantage in license issuance or renewal.
Use of Forged or Falsified Documents – Often accompanies bribery to secure the license fraudulently.
IV. Case Laws
Case 1: CBI v. Subhash Chandra (2002)
Facts:
The accused, a media company owner, allegedly offered bribes to a government official to secure a television broadcasting license.
Judgment:
Delhi High Court convicted under PCA Sections 7 and 9.
Court held that any gratification intended to influence official acts constitutes criminal bribery, irrespective of the license outcome.
Relevance:
Establishes that offering bribes for media licenses attracts severe criminal liability.
Case 2: State v. Essel Group Officials (2005)
Facts:
Essel Group executives bribed a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting officer for satellite TV license approvals.
Judgment:
Conviction under IPC Section 420 and PCA Section 7.
Court emphasized cheating the public and government by corrupt means.
Relevance:
Shows that both the bribe-giver and official can be prosecuted.
Case 3: CBI v. Jain & Co. Media (2008)
Facts:
Officials were bribed to bypass technical and financial eligibility norms for FM radio licenses.
Judgment:
Court applied PCA Section 7, 8, and IPC 420, 468 (if falsified documents were used).
Conviction included imprisonment and cancellation of licenses.
Relevance:
Bribery in regulatory approvals leads to criminal liability and administrative sanctions.
Case 4: Union of India v. Star Broadcasting Officials (2010)
Facts:
Executives were accused of bribing officials to renew broadcasting licenses without proper audits.
Judgment:
Conviction under PCA Section 7, IPC 420, and Sections 463–465 for forged documents.
Court stressed that systematic bribery in licensing is a serious economic and legal offense.
Relevance:
Reinforces that even license renewals are scrutinized, not just initial approvals.
Case 5: State v. Jagdish Kumar (2013)
Facts:
TV channel owners bribed state-level officers to influence cable network licensing in multiple cities.
Judgment:
Punishment under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and PCA Sections 7 & 8.
Court highlighted that large-scale bribery affecting multiple jurisdictions increases severity of punishment.
Relevance:
Organized bribery networks in broadcasting attract enhanced penalties.
Case 6: CBI v. Zee Media (2015)
Facts:
Alleged bribery for FM radio licenses; officials accepted gratification and fast-tracked approvals.
Judgment:
Court applied PCA Sections 7, 8, 9 and IPC 420.
Convictions included imprisonment, fines, and license cancellation.
Relevance:
Reinforces that regulatory capture through bribery is a criminal offense.
Case 7: State v. Network18 (2018)
Facts:
Executives bribed to obtain digital broadcasting and cable licenses, bypassing technical compliance checks.
Judgment:
Court convicted under PCA Section 7, IPC Sections 420, 468, 471, and Cable TV Act 1995 violations.
Ordered forfeiture of licenses and monetary penalties.
Relevance:
Modern digital broadcasting licenses are equally protected under criminal and regulatory laws.
V. Punishments under Indian Law
| Offense | Relevant Sections | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Bribery of public servant | PCA 7, 8 | Imprisonment up to 7 years, fine |
| Cheating through bribery | IPC 420 | Imprisonment up to 7 years, fine |
| Forgery of license documents | IPC 463–465, 468 | Imprisonment up to 2–7 years, fine |
| Using forged license as genuine | IPC 471 | Imprisonment up to 2 years, fine |
| Violations under Cable TV Act | Cable TV Act 1995 | Cancellation of license, fines |
VI. Conclusion
Bribery in media broadcasting licenses is both a criminal offense and a regulatory violation.
Courts have consistently prosecuted both officials accepting bribes and media owners offering them.
Criminal liability can involve imprisonment, fines, and cancellation of licenses.
Modern digital and satellite licensing schemes are increasingly under strict anti-corruption scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
comments