The Supreme Court on Tuesday abstained Sudarshan News from the television broadcast of the remaining episodes of municipal show channels claiming to uncover an alleged plot of how Muslims have infiltrated civil services, reported Direct law. The court noted that the program was insidious and was broadcast on television with the intent and purpose of humiliating Muslims.
A bench of directors DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph was hearing a petition against broadcasting on the program directed by channel editor-in-chief Suresh Chavhanke, arguing that he was communicating the presence of Muslims in the civil service.
At this stage, prima facie, it seems to the court that the purpose, intent and purpose of the program is to insult the Muslim community with an insidious attempt to portray them as part of a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services, the court said.
He added that Chavhanke was making one harm to the service of the nation and is forgetting that India is a point of fusion of different cultures and values, NDTV reported. Your client must exercise his freedom carefully, the court told Chavhanke’s lawyer Shyam Divan.
There are indeed inaccurate statements made in the program regarding the age and number of attempts for Muslims in the UPSC exams, the Supreme Court noted. Any attempt to insult a community should be viewed with great disfavor by this court, which is the custodian of constitutional rights.
The court said it would reconsider the case on September 17 and noted that it was considering forming a five-member committee of prominent individuals to set standards for electronic media.
Although the high court had refused to pass a pre-broadcast ban order against the show on 28 August, he had issued announcements to the Union of India, the Press Council of India, the News Broadcasters Association as well as the Sudarshan News. He further noted that the disruptive potential of the performances was highlighted during the hearing. The petition thus raised important issues related to the protection of constitutional rights, he noted.
In addition, seven previous bureaucrats have also intervened in the petition to seek an authoritarian decision, defining the scope and meaning of hate speech.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Chandrachud noted the power of electronic media to target a community, damage reputation or tarnish one’s image was great. Reputations can be damaged; the image may be tarnished … How to check this? he said.
This program was so insidious, Chandrachud added. Citizens from a particular community who pass the same exams and are interviewed by the same panel. This also throws aspirations into the UPSC exam. How do we deal with these issues? Can this be tolerated?
The Supreme Court further noted that the problem with electronic media was that it was all about TRP, leading to more sensationalism. So many things disguised as rights that it essentially violates Article 19, Joseph noted, referring to freedom of speech and expression.
Senior Lawyer Anoop Chaudhari, appearing for applicant Firoz Iqbal Khan, said the show was openly communal. So communal that you can not even imagine … They [the channel] says Muslims are infiltrating the UPSC, they are jumping graphic bombs, Chaudhari told the court. They have linked a former prime minister to terrorism. Expletives being used for. All kinds of people and even young people watch this channel, what is the impression that this can create in their minds?
But Divan argued that the program was an investigative report dealing with national security. Moreover, Attorney General Tushar Mehta said regulating the media would be very difficult and destructive for democracy. He added that furious things are often spoken from both ends. I do not want to get into his right and left arm, he said. But the question is, can it be fixed?
To this, Justice Joseph replied: No freedom is absolute, not even journalistic freedom. Joseph stressed the need for channels to have debates where others should be allowed to speak only against the anchor.
Chandrachud added that journalists should be governed by certain principles. This is a very difficult area of regulation without a doubt, but we are trying to spread a wider advance of dialogue, he said. Check out this Lawyer program as well [more] rabid can take? Targeting a community applying for civil services.