Updated Breach Decision and Surrender of Licence – Khalsa Television Limited
| Published date | 21 June 2022 |
Ofcom Decision 1
Prime Time
Type of case
Broadcast Standards
Decision
In Breach
Service
KTV
Date and
time
30 December 2021, 19:16
Category
Incitement to crime and disorder
Summary
This programme contained material likely to encourage
or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder,
in breach of Rule 3.1 of the Broadcasting Code.
We published a decision relating to this programme on
31 March 2022 in our list of broadcasting and on
demand sanction decisions on Ofcom’s website,
together with a Suspension Notice. We have reviewed
the decision in the light of representations received as
a part of the statutory process.
Introduction
Ofcom has a duty to suspend a broadcast licence pending a decis ion on revocation, if it is satisfied that
the licensee has broadcast a programme likely to encourage or to i ncite the commission of crime, that
it has therefore contravened its licence conditions; and that the contravention justifies the revocation
of the licence1.
On 31 March 2022, Ofcom suspended the licence held by Khalsa Television Limited (“KTV” or “the
Licensee”) to provide the KTV television service. The reasons are set out in our Suspension Notice 2
including that it had broadcast material likely to encourage or incite the commission o f crime or lead
to disorder in the above programme. Ofcom considered the breach to be serious and was concerned
this was the third time the Licensee had broken our rules on i ncitement to crime. KTV was provided
with the opportunity to provide representations on the Suspens ion Notice. Having carefully
considered the written representations provided by KTV on these matters (summarised from page 8 to
1 Section 239 of the Communications Act 2003.
2 Breach Decision and Suspension Notice – Khalsa Television Limited, 31 March 2022
Ofcom Decision 2
15 below), Ofcom served KTV with a Draft Revocation Notice on 13 May 2022 and invited
representations. On 26 May 2022, KTV surrendered its licence.
As KTV has surrendered its licence, Ofcom no longer needs to complete the revocation process.
However, Ofcom has a duty to be satisfied that any person who wishes to hold a broadcast licence is
fit and proper to hold it. Broadcasts which incite murder are clearly relevant to that duty . If these
broadcasters, or those controlling them, were to apply for a broadcast licence in the future, Ofcom’s
commencement of this revocation process, this decision and the f ull compliance history of the former
licensees would be major factors. We therefore consider it important both to record our position
publicly and to complete the compliance history for KTV.
The Programme
KTV was a television channel broadcasting to the Sikh community in the United Kingdom . Prime Time
was a 95-minute live discussion programme which was broadcast from KTV’s studios in the UK . The
presenter, Jagjit Singh Jeeta, opened the programme with a monologue regarding t he progress of the
Sikh secessionist cause towards the creation of an independent st ate of Khalistan since Operation
Bluestar in 19843, during which he set out his v iew that the current leadership of the Sikh community
lacked the courage or drive to take the necessary action to achieve this aim. He focused on the recent
end of the Farmers’ Protests in Punjab and in particular, the arrest of Sikh acti vist Jagmeet Singh and
his mother, Jasveer Kaur. Later in the programme the presenter took calls from viewers to discuss the
issue of the pro-Khalistan cause.
Ofcom received three complaints that the programme was likely to encourage or incite crime or
violence. All the complainants said that the programme encouraged Sikhs, and i n particular young
Sikhs, to become involved in terrorism.
As the programme was broadcast in Punjabi, we commissioned an English transl ation, a copy of which
we sent to the Licensee for comment both at the opening of our investigation and toge ther with our
Preliminary View. KTV initially told Ofcom it that it considered our translation to be inaccurate and
that it failed to “take into account the tone and cul tural references”, and later reiterated that it
“strongly objects” to the translation. Ofcom invited KTV to provide specific detai ls of the aspects of our
translation it considered to be inaccurate or suggest any changes to it. We did no t receive any
representations from KTV in this regard until after we had published this decision on 31 Mar ch 2022,
when KTV made representations on our Suspension Notice and Breach Decision. We reviewed our
translation in light of KTV’s representations and made changes where we considered a ppropriate (see
under “Ofcom’s position on the translation” on page 16).
Programme summary
Ofcom took into account the entire programme as broadcast. Du e to the length of the programme,
the way in which the message was articulated throughout, an d the need to consider the relevant
statements in context, we have annexed a complete transcript of t he programme to this Decision,
3 Operation Blue Star was the codename of a military operation carried out by Indian security forces between 1
and 10 June 1984 to remove the leader of Damdami Taksal, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, and his followers from
the buildings of the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs located in Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Ofcom Decision 3
which should be read along with this Decision. Our substanti ve reasoning below steps through what
was said.
Prime Time was a live discussion programme presented by Jagjit Singh Jeeta which lasted just over an
hour and a half. After an opening monologue, the presenter inv ited viewers to ring in and discuss their
views on-air. The presenter gave a 23-minute introduction, and then took calls from three callers.
Throughout the programme a text disclaimer was scrolled across t he screen in English which read:
“The views and opinion expressed in the following programme are those of the speakers or presenters
so not necessarily reflect or constitute the views and opinions held by KTV”.
Two further captions were repeated on screen in Gurmukhi scrip t which read:
• “A mother and son are being held captive as a result of various cases being lodged against
them, under the pretext of [links with] SFJ 4”.
• “Are those [who have been] lobbying for Khalistan in foreign nations for the las t 37 years using
the ‘Khalistan cause’ for personal gain?”
Ofcom’s concerns
Ofcom received three complaints about this programme. The compla inants raised concerns that
material broadcast in the programme incited violence and/o r terrorism. In particular, complainants
said:
• the presenter encouraged/provoked Sikhs, and in particular youn ger Sikhs, to become
involved in terrorism; and
• content in this programme was “very dangerous” and encouraged Sikhs “to do things under
the table” or “underground”.
We considered the programme raised issues under the following rule of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code5
(“the Code”):
Rule 3.1: “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to
lead to disorder must not be included in television…services…”
Background
As part of Ofcom’s assessment of the programme, we took account of the foll owing historical context
with regard to the Khalistan secessionist movement and the in volvement of some of the activists
referenced by the presenter throughout the programme:
• In 1978, 13 Sikh followers of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (a Sikh religious leader, also
known as Sant Baba Jarnail Singh)6 were killed in clashes with followers of Nirankari, the
breakaway sect from Sikhism. Two members of the Nirankari sect were also killed in the
4 Sikhs For Justice is a US based secessionist group that supports the secession of Punjab from India as Khalistan.
5 The Broadcasting Code.
6 Sikh militant leader who led the Sikh uprising in 1984 and seized control of the Golden Temple. He was killed in
Operation Bluestar, the assault by the Indian military to regain control of the temple.
To continue reading
Request your trial