IN principle, there is no reason why journalists should not have a disciplinary body just as lawyers have their bar council and medical doctors have their medical council, both statutory bodies. But in the case of the press, there is a real danger of regulation stifling this sensitive medium, “a surrogate of the people”. However, the press, like any other profession, can commit excesses.

Britain’s problems in promulgating a BBC-type royal charter on self-regulation, by establishing an independent press watchdog, yields important lessons. The scandals which rocked the press in that country were of the gravest kind. Rupert Murdoch’s mass circulation News of the World had to fold up. Its editor and chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, is on trial for serious offences.

Disclosures of murky newsroom practices during the trial only fortify the case for some binding rules. Both the Press Council and its successor the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) turned out to be incompetent.

National uproar led to the institution of an inquiry regarding the culture, practices and ethics of the press, headed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson.

His report, published in November 2012, recommended an independent self-regulatory body governed by an independent board. The appointment of the chair of the board would be made by any independent appointment panel. The board would comprise a majority independent of the press.

The board would require all those who subscribe to have an adequate and speedy complaint-handling mechanism; it would have the power to hear and decide on complaints about breach of the standards code, and to hear complaints. The regulatory body would also establish a whistle-blowing hotline for those who felt they were being asked to do things contrary to the code.

The report was greeted with howls of protest threatening to wreck a most sensible effort. The Economist called it “a mixture of the mediocre, the clever and the dangerous”. Its editor and those of other papers met within the week to agree on a code of conduct devoid of statutory backing.

Prime Minister David Cameron hit on a bright idea. The new press watchdog should be set up by royal charter, and not by an act of parliament. In December he asked the editors of all national papers to suggest an alternative to Leveson’s recommendations, but warned that if they failed to do so, he would be forced to bring in legislation.

Within hours, the editors announced that they had indeed agreed on a broad framework for an independent regulator that would meet 40 of Leveson’s 47 recommendations.

On Oct 30, 2013 the royal charter was sealed by the Privy Council. The PCC would be replaced by a new regulator (the ‘charter regulator’), the board for which would be chosen by an independent and press industry members. A new industry watchdog would oversee the charter regulator to ensure its independence.

A new standards code would be drawn up by the charter regulator which would take account of the importance of freedom of speech and cover standards of (i) conduct, (ii) privacy; and (iii) accuracy. The regulator would have the ability to impose fines of up to 1pc of a publisher’s turnover for breaches.

It would provide an inexpensive alternative to the libel suit in which huge amounts would be awarded as damages. Publishers who remained outside the new regulatory regime would, in effect, be penalised for doing so if they were the subject of legal proceedings. As of Oct 31, 2013, none of the national newspapers accepted the new regime.

Since a large section of media owners rejected the charter, prominent figures in the fields of literature, the arts, media and politics published an appeal for its acceptance.

The lessons are obvious. First no press regulatory system can work unless it is accepted by the press itself; owners as well as journalists.

Their support will not be forthcoming unless it is demanded by public opinion. The major political parties are divided on the report. Lastly, the media must reckon with abuses within its own ranks and accept the principles of accountability and transparency.

The Press Council of India has become a tolerated irrelevance because its architect flouted all principles. It was set up by a statute, the Press Council Act 1978, without much consultation with the press with a composition that virtually excluded all prominent editors.

Its prime flaw is not that it lacks ‘teeth’ as that many of its successive chairpersons failed to command public respect.

The council failed on important issues but delivered some useful rulings on refusal of advertisements intimidation of journalists and the like. It needs drastic reform in consultation with the press.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.