On 15th Sep 2020,
the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Firoz Iqbal Khan v. Union of India
comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice K.M
Joseph restrains Sudharshan TV from Telecastng UPSC Jihad Show and stated that
an insidious attempt has been made to insinuate that the community is involved
in a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services.
Facts
On 28 August 2020, the writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was moved for urgent directions
since the telecast of a programme titled “Bindaas Bol” was to take place at 8
pm on Sudarshan news,. The petitioner relied on the transcript of a promotional
clip of forty-nine seconds. The contention was that the clip contains
statements which are derogatory of the entry of Muslims in the civil services.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
The High Court declined to issue a
pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction, furnishing the following reasons in
paragraph 8 of the order:-
“At this stage, we have desisted from imposing a pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction on the basis of an unverified transcript of a forty nine second clip. The Court has to be circumspect in imposing a prior restraint on publication or the airing of views. We note that under statutory provisions, competent authorities are vested with powers to ensure compliance with law, including provisions of the criminal law intended to ensure social harmony and the peaceful coexistence of all communities.”
Issue
The issue is whether a
pre-broadcast injunction should be issued in respect of the remaining episodes
of the programme.
Petitioner Submissions
The Petitioner submits before the
court that the:-
- Content of the episodes which have been
telecast constitutes hate speech directed against the Muslim community.
- telecasts vilify the community by portraying it
to be involved in an act of terror or, as it is labelled, “jehad” in
infiltrating the civil services of the nation.
- restraint which was observed by this Court in
declining to issue an order of injunction on 28 August 2020 would warrant
a change.
For one thing, it has been
emphasized that in the course of the telecast, palpably false statements have
been made in connection with the Muslim community, including among them the
statements that:
- While the upper age limit for Hindus in
the civil services examination is 32 years, the age limit for Muslims is
35 years; and
- While six attempts are made available for
Hindus to appear for the civil services examination, Muslims are entitled
to nine attempts.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
Solicitor General of India Submissions
The Solicitor General of India
submitted that some of the broader issues which have been raised in the present
case would have to be addressed from the perspective of regulating not merely
the electronic media but other forms of media as well, through which
information which is purveyed can transgree the line of permissible content
which can be shared and aired.
The Solicitor General further
submitted that in pursuance of the order of the Delhi High Court, the Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting issued a communication on 9 September 2020
stating that if there is a breach of the Programme Code, the Government would
consider whether a case has been made out for recourse to its powers under the
law.
Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court stated that prima
facie, it does appear to the Court that the intent, object and purpose of the
episodes which have been telecast is to vilify the Muslim community. An
insidious attempt has been made to insinuate that the community is involved in
a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services.
Several statements in the episodes,
which have been drawn to the attention of the Court are not just palpably
erroneous but have been made in wanton disregard of the truth. There is no
relaxation either in the age limit or in the number of attempts available to
the Muslim community in the civil services.
The drift, tenor and content of the episodes is to bring the community into public hatred and disrepute. The Court is duty bound to ensure compliance with the salutary principles of the Programme Code.
The Programme Code has been
formulated under Rule 6 of the Cable and Television Networks (Regulation) Rules
and has statutory force and effect. Rule 6(1)(c), inter alia, stipulates that
no programme should be carried which “contains attack on religions or
communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which
promote communal attitudes”. Under Rule 6(1)(d), the Programme Code should not,
inter alia, contain anything which is defamatory, false or reflective of “half
- truths and suggestive innuendos”.
On the basis of what has been
aired, we are of the view that it will be necessary to interdict any further
telecast. Consequently, we direct that pending further orders of this Court,
the fifth respondent shall stand injuncted from making any further telecast in
continuation of or similar to the episodes which were telecast on 11, 12, 13
and 14 September, 2020 either under the same or any other title or caption.
Further the Court listed the matter
on 17 September 2020.
0 Comments