Updated: October 9, 2020 7:34:47 am
The affidavit said that the reported reports “do not promote or incite violence or contain anything against the maintenance of public order and / or that promotes anti-national attitudes.” (File photo)
“Freedom of expression may be the most abused freedom in recent times,” the Supreme Court observed Thursday by making an exception to what it called an “evasive” affidavit filed by the Center in response to a petition alleging discriminatory news. . coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat issue.
The Chief Justice of India SA Bobde made this comment when lead attorney Dushyant Dave, who appeared on behalf of petitioner Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind and said that the Tablighi issue was reported in such a way as to spread hatred among women. communities, claimed that the government affidavit accused him of trying to muzzle freedom of expression.
Given this, the CJI said, “you have the right to present any argument as you do. This freedom of expression may be the most abused freedom in recent times ”.
The court, also made up of judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, showed their dissatisfaction with the sworn statement presented by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
The CJI told Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Center: “We must tell you, Mr. Mehta, that you cannot treat the Tribunal the way you are treating you in this case. You have submitted an affidavit from a junior officer. We find it extremely elusive. It doesn’t mention anything about bad information. How can you say there was no incident? ”.
Mehta said he would file a new affidavit. The court said that it should be filed by the Secretary of the corresponding department and that it should reflect on the instances denounced.
In defense of freedom of the press, the affidavit of the Center said that the spread of Covid-19 among those attending the Tablighi Jamaat convention in Nizamuddin Markaz, the attacks on health workers by some sections, etc., were all facts and that “news based on facts … cannot be censored.”
The affidavit said that the reported reports “do not promote or incite violence or contain anything against the maintenance of public order and / or that promotes anti-national attitudes.”
The affidavit said that the statement generated complaints against “certain sectors of the media” without naming any, and “certain news reports” without producing these reports, and “simply relied on ‘certain fact-checking news reports’ to affirm that all the media are perpetrating a lack of community harmony and hatred towards Muslims, for which it is required to be censored / gagged ”.
Holding that no reparations should be awarded on the basis of such “blanket assertions”, the affidavit said that “the attempt to seek a blanket ‘gag order’ against all media regarding Markaz Nizamuddin will effectively destroy freedom of the citizen to know about the affairs of the respective sectors of society in the nation and the journalist’s right to guarantee an informed society ”.
The bank asked Mehta for information on the laws under which the government had exercised similar powers in the past.
When the hearing began, the CJI told Dave that the court had examined the relevant provision, Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995, but that it “does not help” as it applies only to Cable TV and not TV signals.
Section 20 deals with the Center’s power to prohibit the operation of a cable television network in the public interest.
The bank said it wanted to know if the government had any power to prohibit the transmission of television signals.
Dave said the department had been invoking powers under the Cable Television Act to control television.
Stepping in, Mehta said, “don’t control, regulate … they have two different meanings.”
The court noted that only powers that are established by law can be exercised.
In its affidavit, the Center said: “All the facts mentioned are neither per se false nor per se false. Although in isolated cases it may be exaggerated … factual news reports that are not prima facie or per de false or false cannot be censored under article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. “
He said that “the dissemination of such facts by the media, although they may appear offensive and unpleasant to certain people or a sector of society, is protected by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the dissemination of such facts by the prima facie media does not constitute an attack against religion or religious communities. The same is not equivalent to images or words that despise religious groups or words / opinions that promote community attitudes ”.
The Center said that it is only false and false news per se that does not enjoy the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and pointed to instances in which prosecution has been initiated in individual cases of false reports.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had issued instructions to social media platforms to remove / block 739 URLs and 4 accounts that spread misinformation about the virus that could lead to a disharmony between communities.
The I&B Ministry, he said, had also established a Fact-Checking Unit in the Press Information Office for Covid-19 cases on April 2. As of July 14, this unit had received communication in 6,853 cases of which responses had been given in 6,079 cases, it said.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and keep up to date with the latest headlines
For the latest news about India, download the Indian Express app.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
