Republic TV, TRP and Crime.

On 8th October 2020, , Mumbai Police Commissioner ParamBir Singh, in a live televised press conference stated that the police are investigating a scam involving manipulation of Television Rating Points (TRPs) which are published by the Broadcast Audience Research Council, India (BARC). He alleged that three channels, including Republic-TV were involved in manipulating the rating system installed by BARC.

A few question that are being attempted to be answered.

  1. What is this Broadcast Audience Research Council, India (BARC) and who are its Stake holders.
  2. What are the Television Rating Points (TRPs) and how are the Television Rating Points (TRPs) calculated for channels in India.
  3. What are the allegations made by the Mumbai Police against Republic and other channels.
  4. Whether these allegations are assumed to be true, would the same amount to Crime under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC?
  5. Who can be the aggrieved party / victim of the alleged crime.
  1. What is this Broadcast Audience Research Council, India (BARC) and who are its Stake holders.

BARC has a website – barcindia.co.in . The opening of the page you come across a declaration “Powering the India TV Ad Industry worth 32,000 crores through sharp insights.

If you click “About” you get a declaration “Transparent. Accurate. Inclusive. TV Audience Measurement System.”

BARC Stake holders are –

  1. Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) holds 60% shares in BARC. It is established in 1999 and claims to be India’s premium apex organization of television broadcasters promoting the interests of the Indian Television Industry. IBF claims to consists of major broadcasters with more than 250 TV Channels and enjoys a unique position as the accredited spokesman of the broadcasting industry.
  2. The Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) holds 20% shares. ISA claims to be the peak national body for advertisers for 60 years and represents the interests of organisations involved in Indian advertising, marketing and media industry. It claims that nearly all major advertisers have become members of the ISA and its current membership of around 160 is spread throughout the length and breadth of the Country and the collectively, the membership of ISA accounts for two thirds of all annual advertising expenditures made in India.
  3. The Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) holds 20% shares and claims to be the official, national organisation of advertising agencies, formed to promote their interests. The AAAI represents large number of small, medium and large-sized agencies as its members, who together account for almost 80% of the advertising business placed in the country. It is thus recognised at all forums – advertisers, media owners and associations, and even Government – as the spokesperson for the advertising industry.
  • What are the Television Rating Points (TRPs) and how are the Television Rating Points (TRPs) calculated for channels in India by BARC.
    • As per the BARC website describes the TRP calculation process. It describes in detail the methodology for the same. The entire process has three ingredients.
      • Data Collection Process
      • Measurement Science
      • Watermarked Channels.
    • BARC has in place an online booklet describing in detail the television audience measurement system and description of methodology. The said booklet is available at this link –
    • https://www.barcindia.co.in/measurement/television-audience-measurement-description-of-methodology.pdf
https://www.barcindia.co.in/measurement/television-audience-measurement-description-of-methodology.pdf
  • This booklet in detail describes the entire methodology of sampling in households and out of homes viewership in various other business establishments like hotels and restaurants.
    • Chapter 1 in detail describes Sampling and Recruitment
    • Chapter 2 describes the Sample Weighting                                 
    • Chapter 3 describes the Panel Size and Design                             
    • Chapter 4 details the Data Processing
    • Chapter 5 gives the Technical Details
    • Chapter 6 describes the Methodological Flow
    • Chapter 7 gives the details relating to the Sources of Error in BARC Television Audience Estimates
    • Chapter 8 describes the method of Frame Exclusions and Ineligibles in BARC’s Television Panels
    • Appendix 1 gives the Live Testing Procedures                  
    • Immaterial Impact Test                           
    • Minor Impact Test
    • Appendix 2 gives the New Consumer Classification System (NCCS) Assignment Process
    • If one goes through only the subheadings of the aforesaid chapters in the said booklet one will understand that BARC has set up an elaborate methodology of arriving at proper TRP ratings for the entire Television industries. The details of the said methodology have been in brief indexed as under:

I Contents

ii Table of Contents

iii 1. Sampling and Recruitment

1.1. Sample Universe

1.1.1. Currency Panel Sample Universe

1.1.2. Out-of-Home Panel Sample Universe

1.2. Sample Frame

1.2.1. Household Sample Frame

1.2.2. Out-of-Home Panel Sample Frame

1.3. Sampling Process

1.3.1. Currency Panel Sampling Process

1.3.2. Out-of-Home Panel Sampling Process          

1.4. Panel Turnover and De-Installation                

1.5. Household Members Ineligible to Participate       

2. Sample Weighting                                 

2.1. Cell Weighting                               

2.1.1. Currency Panel Weighting                   

2.2. Minimum and Maximum Weights               

2.3. Collapsing                                  

2.4. Types of Weights                             

2.5. Sample Control Configurations                  

2.5.1. Primary Control Variables                   

2.5.2. Secondary Control Variables – CP             

2.6. Universe Estimates (Weighting and Control)       

3. Panel Size and Design                             

3.1. CP Panel Size and Design                       

3.1.1. CP Panel Size                             

3.1.2. CP Panel Design                          

3.2. Establishment Panel Size and Design             

3.2.1. Establishment Panel Size                   

Establishment Panel Design                 

4. Data Processing                                  

4.1. Pre-processing                               

4.1.1. TV Set Session                            

4.1.2. Magnetisation                           

4.1.3. Bridging                                 

4.1.4. Individual Viewing Sessions within a Clock Minute                                 

4.1.5. Channel Viewing Sessions within a Clock Minute                                 

4.2. Data Validation                              

4.3. Modelling and Fusion (Out-of-Home Estimates Only)                                 

5. Technical Details                                

5.1. Metering Watermark Embedder

5.2. Metering Unit                               

5.2.1. Individual Viewer Identification              

5.3. Data Capture, Storage, Transmission, and Collection 

6. Methodological Flow                              

6.1. Methodological Flow for the Currency Panel        

6.2. Methodological Flow for Out-of-Home            

7. Sources of Error in BARC Television Audience Estimates 

7.1. Error of Non-observation                      

7.1.1. Sampling Error                           

7.1.2. Coverage Error                           

7.1.3. Nonresponse Error                        

7.2. Error of Observation                           

8. Frame Exclusions and Ineligibles in BARC’s Television Panels

8.1. Exclusions                                  

8.1.1. Currency Panel Exclusions                  

8.1.2. Out-of-home Panel Exclusions               

8.2. Ineligibility                                 

8.2.1. Media Ineligibility                        

8.2.2. Households without a Kitchen               

8.2.3. Other Ineligibility                         

Appendix 1. Live Testing Procedures                  

Immaterial Impact Test                           

Minor Impact Test

Appendix 2. New Consumer Classification System (NCCS) Assignment Process

  • In brief the Methodological Flow for the Currency Panel The BARC CP follows a methodological flow consisting of twelve distinct steps – Listing Study, ID Master, Recruitment, Watermarking, ContentChannel ID & Timestamp, Playout and Broadcast, Viewing at Home (Live / Delayed), Establishment Survey, Weighting and QC, Raw Data Generation, Time slot viewing data, Apply Program / TVC details and Final Viewership data.
    • The out of home OOH data collection system consists of a more complicated system described in detail in the booklet. If one refers to the methodology created for sample creation and data collection it would be very difficult for anyone to effectively manipulate the data so as to have a perceptible effect in the TRP ratings in respect of any particular Channel.
  • What are the allegations made by the Mumbai Police against Republic and other channels?
    • As per the case tried to be made out by the Mumbai Police and it is alleged as follows.
      • that the TRP is calculated on the basis of TV channel viewership in a confidential set of households.
      • that there are 2,000 barometers installed in Mumbai to monitor TRPs. BARC has given confidential contracts to an agency called ‘Hansa’ for monitoring these barometers and that some of these households were asked to keep some channels on even if they were not at home and thereby have an effect on their TRP ratings.
      • that the BARC (Broadcast Audience Research Council) releases weekly rating points for TV channels in India and its own officials are also being questioned in connection with the case.
      • that two people were arrested, produced in court and the Mumbai Police have got their custody. One accused has been arrested with Rs 20 lakhs while Rs 8.5 lakhs has been found in a bank locker, Commissioner ParamBir Singh said.
      • thatBARC has submitted that Republic TV and two other channels are the suspects in this TRP manipulations.
      • that the Police received the data of these households from BARC.
      • thatif this was happening in Mumbai then it could be happening in other parts of the country as well.
      • that this amounts to cheating (breach of trust) complaint turned into an FIR, the police commissioner told reporters.
      • that the owners of Marathi channels Fakt Marathi and Box Cinema have been arrested. Arrests were made under sections 409 and 420 of IPC.
      • that the complaint was filed by Hansa Research against some of their ex-employees who could have misused data on households where the TRP monitoring systems are installed and that some current employees could also be involved and some insiders could be involved.
      • that some TV channels ran fake propaganda to gain ratings but now we have come to learn that there was a manipulation being done in BARC systems.
      • that the culprits, whoever they may be, will be investigated and this fraud case would be taken to its logical conclusion.
      • thatBARC in its statement has declared that “BARC India continues to follow its established vigilance and disciplinary guidelines. BARC remains steadfastly true to its purpose to accurately and faithfully report ‘What India Watches’. BARC India appreciates the efforts of the Mumbai Police and will provide the support asked of it.
  • Whether these allegations are assumed to be true, would the same amount to Crime under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and
  • Who can be the aggrieved party / victim of the alleged crime.

Letsanswer the questions 4 and 5 together. It is admitted that the arrests have been made under sections 420 and 409 of the IPC.

Section 420 IPCof The Indian Penal Court defines – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property as –

“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Cheating” as –
“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation,–A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Dishonestly

Section 24 defines “Dishonestly” as –

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

Fraudulently

Section 25 defines “Fraudulently” as –

“A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise”.

The Essential ingredients of Section 420 are –

  1. There should be a person who has been fraudulently or dishonestly deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
  2. Thus basically making of a false representation with the purpose of deceiving the complainant is one of the essential ingredients to institute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Now let us see what is Section 405 and 409 IPC.

Section 405 – Criminal breach of trust

“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent –

“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Whether any case has been made out under Section 420?

Now who has been deceived in the matter of Republic and other Channels?

Obviously it would have to be some Advertisers. Has the FIR been lodged by any of these Advertisers that they had given their Advertisements to these Channels based on the TRP ratings given by BARC to these Channels.

Has any of these Advertisers complained? Were the decisions of these advertisers to advertise on these channels based only upon the BARC ratings?

Are the BARC ratings binding upon the Advertisers to make a decision relating to the award of Advertisements?

Have these channels not given Advertisements to the Channels which are low on the BARC ratings?

Are the advertising rates also material for making a decision to advertise or not on the Channels or the criteria of TRP is the only relevant factor in the decision making process?

To what extent the TRP ratings would influence the Advertisers decision to advertise or not?

Some similar issues were raised in the matter of a PIL being Writ Petition No. 2411 of 2001 decided on 05.11.2001 between Appellants: Prabhakar Shankar Deodhar Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors by Hon’ble Division bench of the Bombay High Court Mr.B.P. Singh, C.J. and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J it was prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India, and to the Indian Statistical Institute, or to any one of them, to constitute an autonomous body for releasing, “Television Rating Points (TRPs) in relation to Television Channels and programmes so as to have a “common currency for the rating of Television channels and programmes duly acceptable to the advertisers and marketing companies, Government and general public with adequate checks and balance to ensure reliability thereof” This Writ Petition was rejected by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the Court was not competent under Article 226 to pass any such directions as prayed for by the Petitioner.

It is very much clear that like the Respondents who were arrayed in the above Petition, BARC is also a private informal entity with the above three associations as its stake holders. It is not a Government agency nor is it recognised as such. It is a privately controlled and managed corporate entity which are in the business of determining Television Rating Points. They provide their services their stake holders and the members of the stake holders by informing them about the TRPs which is supposed to reflect the viewership which is an index of the popularity of Television programmes or channels as determined by them with the methodology. There is no compulsion to subscribe. There is no obligation on any advertiser or marketing agency to accept of rely upon the data which is generated by them There is no compulsion upon any private or public advertiser to accept what is put forth by them. There is no law which statutorily regulated the activities of BARC. There was a proposed Convergence Bill, 2001 proposed to have been enacted into law by Parliament, would have had the power to regulate the issuance of TRPs, as incidental to the statutory power of the commission to carry out studies and publish findings on matters of importance to consumers, service providers and the communications industry etc. The proposed Convergence Bill has not yet been enacted in to law as the same lapsed in 2004 itself on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and was never introduced again.

I assume that the Maharashtra Police in order to prove their allegations will go after some of the Advertisers to make some statements that their decision to advertise on the said channels  were influenced by the TRP ratings given by BARC to these channels which were manipulated. In fact the cause of action for the Advertisers would be against BARC which claims to have in place a fool-proof system of TRP assessment as claimed by them in their own website and the system of assessment as described in the booklet referred to hereinabove.

Whether any case has been made out under Sections 405 read with 409?

To answer this question let us answer the following questions first.

Section 405

Whether any property has been in any manner entrusted?

Whether there has been any dishonest misappropriation or conversion of this property for the own use of the accused?

Whether there is any law prescribing the mode in which such entrusted property is to be discharged?

Whether there is any legal contract, express or implied, touching the discharge of entrusted property?

Whether there is any dishonest use or disposal of any such property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied?

Whether there is any breach of any such entrusted property?

Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent –

Whether the Accused were acting in any capacity of a public servant or as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent for any one?

The answer would obviously be in the negative

Whether the Accused persons were in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in their capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent.

Again the answer would obviously be in the negative

Whether the Accused in such capacity have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property?

The question therefore does not arise.

The answers to all these questions are obviously difficult for the Police to prove. In my opinion therefore no legally prosecutable case has been made out by the Mumbai Police and they have bitten more than they can chew at the instance of their political masters.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.