A controversial television program scheduled to air on the Sudarshan News television channel about the entry of Muslims into the civil service aims to vilify the Muslim community, the Supreme Court observed Tuesday by prohibiting the channel from going ahead with the broadcast of the rest. six episodes of the program “Bindas Bol”.
The court will also hear the case on Thursday. The channel had previously aired four episodes.
The high court strongly opposed the content of the program, noting that the claims made by the channel appeared to be “insidious”, painted an entire community with the same brush, and slandered the credibility of the examination carried out by the Public Union. Sevice commission.
“Prima facie, it appears to the Court that the intention, object and purpose of the episodes that have been broadcast 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 public administration. The drift, the tenor and the content of the episodes is to lead the community to public hatred and discredit … Any attempt to vilify a community should be viewed with disdain by this court as a custodian of constitutional values, ”he said. the court composed of judges DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph said.
At an earlier hearing, the court had refused to impose a pre-broadcast ban on the controversial show, citing freedom of expression.
On Tuesday, the judges said there has been a change in circumstances due to the tone, tenor of the program that emerged after 4 episodes aired from September 11 to 14.
“We believe that there has been a change in circumstances, at least prima facie, on the basis of the record that has arisen before this court. We order and order that, pending further orders from this court, Sudarshan News will be exempted from broadcasting further broadcasts in the continuation or similar to the broadcast that took place on September 11, 12, 13 and 14, either under the same or any other. title or legend ”, ordered the bank.
Lead counsel Shyam Divan, who appeared for Sudarshan News, told judges that such an order would amount to a pre-news restriction and violate freedom of expression.
“I reserve the right to a fair criticism of the order after the hearing on the matter is over. As of now, I think the petitioners / auditors must have mentioned the full 4 episode stream. His arguments were contrary to the facts and records. My client has never said anything about the Muslim community. We are concerned about the issue of national security, ”defender Vishnu Jain, who represented Sudarshan News, told HT.
The court was hearing a request from lawyer Firoz Iqbal Khan, who claimed that the program contained derogatory statements about the entry of Muslims into the civil service. In the trailer for the show, which was widely shared on social media platforms, Sudarshan News host and editor-in-chief Suresh Chavhanke was seen questioning what he called a sudden increase in the number of Muslims succeeding in exams. IAS and IPS.
Chavhanke had asked what the consequences would be if “Jamia (university) jihadists” were to occupy positions of authority and power such as Collector and Secretary.
Khan argued that the expression of opinions was derogatory to a particular community, has the potential for division, and violated the program code listed in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995.
Simultaneously, another petition on the same issue was heard by the Delhi High Court, which on August 28 suspended the broadcast and asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take a call on the matter. The ministry authorized the show on September 10 while running the channel to ensure that the show did not violate any program code. Action will be taken in accordance with the law if any violations are found, he said.
Subsequently, a new petition was filed with the superior court that issued a notice of the guilty plea on September 11, but declined the stay. Sudarshan News proceeded to broadcast four episodes of the show.
Lead attorney Anoop Choudhari and attorney Shadan Farasat who appeared on behalf of the petitioners and interveners submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the television broadcast violated the program’s code and amounted to hate speech.
Farasat noted that the program made false statements about the relaxation given to Muslim candidates regarding the upper age limit and the number of attempts available to take the exam.
The magistracy criticized the episodes broadcast by the channel, pointing out that the insinuations made in the program did not correspond to the democratic traditions of the country and that several statements that were brought to the attention of the court are “palpably wrong.”
“You are doing the nation a disservice. What has been happening does not give credit to our democratic system. We are a melting pot of cultures, civilizations, religions and languages, ”said Judge DY Chandrachud.
Judge Chandrachud also stated that every person applying for the UPSC goes through the same screening process and the suggestion that a community is trying to infiltrate the civil services does great harm to the nation.
“In the UPSC exam, everyone undergoes the same tests, interviews and is evaluated by the same people. But the implication is that a community is trying to infiltrate the UPSC. What you are doing does not give credit to our democratic system. Your client is doing the nation a disservice. We are a melting pot of cultures, ”Chandrachud told Divan.
Divan said the show raises a national security issue and it is in the public interest to get the story out.
“The program adheres to the program code,” Divan said, while underlining that the matter involves foreign funds from sources that are adverse to India’s interests.
Judge KM Joseph, who was also in the dock, said that the freedom granted to the media is not absolute and that the way certain television channels conduct news debates today leaves much to be desired.
He asked Attorney General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, to explore options to disclose the share pattern and revenue model of media companies in the public domain.
“Certain channels silence panelists when they express opinions that go against the views of the presenter. This is unfair. No freedom is absolute, not even journalistic freedom, ”Judge Joseph said.
.
