The court was emphatic that those shows that tend to cast a particular community in a bad light cannot go without scrutiny simply by claiming the right to free speech and freedom of the press.
- CNN-News18 New Delhi
- Last update: September 15, 2020 11:58 PM IST
- Edited by: Moonmoon ghosh
- FOLLOW US:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court described as “insidious” and “rabid” efforts to target a particular community through television shows.
A bench of judges DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph expressed their deep concern about the use of the power and reach of electronic media to attack a particular community when hearing a petition against a television program of a private channel about the entry of Muslims in public administration.
“As the Supreme Court of this nation, we cannot allow you to say that Muslims are infiltrating the civil services. We cannot tolerate this. No one can say that journalists have absolute freedom to say anything,” the court observed while issuing an order. provisional on the suspension of the transmission by television of later episodes of the program.
The court prevented Sudarshan TV from broadcasting two episodes of the ‘Bindas Bol’ program, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, and said that it appears to vilify the Muslim community at first.
The court was emphatic that shows that tend to portray a particular community in a bad light cannot go without scrutiny simply by upholding the right to free speech and freedom of the press.
The court denounced the channel, saying it could be hurting the nation by not accepting that India is a melting point of diverse cultures. “Your client must exercise his freedom with caution,” the court told lead attorney Shyam Divan, who appeared on the channel.
“It appears to the court that the aim of the program is to vilify the Muslim community and hold it responsible for an insidious attempt to infiltrate the civil services. We have a duty to ensure adherence to the program code formed under the Cable Television Act. “, said. the bank in your order. He added that the building of a stable democratic society and the observance of constitutional rights and duties is based on the coexistence of communities. “Any attempt to vilify a community should be viewed with distaste,” he said.
The court opined that electronic media, due to their enormous accessibility, can become a focal point to destabilize the nation by targeting particular communities, so certain standards should guide them.
“Reputation can be damaged, images can be tarnished. How to control this? The state cannot do this. This is certainly a very difficult area of regulation, but we are trying to extend a broader dialogue sponsorship. Look. this program Lawyer, how can you get mad? Targeting a community running for civil services, “Judge Chandrachud asked Attorney General Tushar Mehta.
For his part, Judge KM Joseph said: “We have to analyze the ownership of visual media. The full pattern of participation of the company must be in place for the public. The revenue model of that company must also be established to verify if the government is putting more ads in one and less in another. “
But Mehta objected to the idea of external regulations on the media. “The freedom of the journalist is paramount. There are two aspects of Judge Joseph’s statements. It would be disastrous for any democracy to control the press. There is also a parallel medium, in addition to electronic media, where a laptop and a journalist can
The law enforcement officer also cited an illustration from YouTube, saying how it will be possible to regulate this platform or question its revenue model.
The bank replied that it should not be wary of regulating one thing just because it cannot regulate anything. “Fair comment and duty equivalent to the right to a fair response … Journalists must abide by certain principles,” he stressed.
The court noted that it is inclined to have a committee of five distinguished individuals of commendable stature to suggest certain principles to guide electronic media. The matter will be known on September 17.
.