New Delhi: The Supreme Court has blocked Sudarshan News TV from broadcasting the remaining episodes of its ‘Bindas Bol’ show, which had promised to deploy a ‘UPSC Jihad’ conspiracy, after a prima facie observation that the show’s goal was “to vilify Muslims.”
Upon hearing an allegation against the show, a bench of judges DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph made strong comments against the tone and tenor of the show, a preview of which was released on August 27 and resulted in outrage on the networks. social. The exchange between lawyers, the court and Attorney General Tushar Mehta also addressed essential media issues, freedom of the press, and factors that influence the control of media behavior.
“Any attempt to vilify a community should be viewed with great disapproval by this court, which is a custodian of constitutional rights,” LiveLaw said, citing the court.
In the teaser, channel director Suresh Chavhanke had claimed that the show would reveal the “conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims into government service.” On September 11, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had allowed the broadcast of the program. On the same day, the Delhi High Court refused to suspend the broadcast, having initially prevented the channel from broadcasting the show.
The Supreme Court called the program “rabid” and said there should be some self-regulatory mechanism in the media.
“Look at this show, how rabid is this show that a community is entering public administration?” looked at the bench headed by Judge Chandrachud.
Farasat: The show begins with shots of ISIS faces. This is nothing more than hate speech and communalization of something that is not communal. The program basically means that all Muslims who come to UPSC are jihadists. This is being done under the guise of investigative journalism.
– Bar and bank (@barandbench) September 15, 2020
“Do you see how suggestive the theme of this show is that Muslims have infiltrated the services and this puts the UPSC exams under a scanner without any factual basis?” said the bank.
“These insidious charges also put a question mark on the UPSC exams. Sprays have been launched on UPSC. Such accusations without any factual basis, how can this be allowed? Can such programs be allowed in a free society? “asked the bank.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta told the high court that the freedom of journalists is paramount and that it would be disastrous for any democracy to “control the press.”
To this, Judge Joseph pointed out that no freedom is absolute.
SG: Something nasty written about me, can we really do something about it? After all, it is freedom of the press.
Judge Chandrachud: I am in the mainstream media aspect.#Freedom of the press #SudarshanNews #BindasBol
– Living Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 15, 2020
Top defender Shyam Divan, who appears on Sudarshan TV, told the bank that the channel considered it “an investigative story on national security.”
“Your client is doing the nation a disservice and does not accept that India is a fusion point of diverse cultures. Your client must exercise his freedom with caution, ”the bank told Divan.
During the hearing conducted via videoconference, the court said: “We are not suggesting any kind of censorship in the media but there should be some kind of self-regulation in the media.”
“How do we set some standards for media reporting?” the bank said, adding that there should be some kind of self-regulation and that it would listen to the attorney general on this issue.
The high court said the petition has sought guidelines on how the media should report some issues and guidelines for self-regulation.
“We are not saying that states will impose such guidelines, as it would be anathema to Article 19 of freedom of expression,” the court said.
The high court observed that the revenue model of television channels and their ownership patterns should be in the public domain on the website.
“The point is that the right of the media is only on behalf of the citizens and it is not an exclusive right of the media,” the bank said. “Electronic media have become more powerful than print media and we have not supported the pre-broadcast ban.”
During the hearing, the court referred to the criminal investigation being carried out by some media.
“When journalists operate, they need to work around the right to a fair comment. See criminal investigation, the media often focus only on one part of the investigation, “he said.
The bank told Divan: “We expect some kind of restraint from your client (Sudarshan TV).”
Lead attorney Anoop G. Chaudhary, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, said that the Delhi High Court had referred the matter to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, but that the ministry did not approve a reasoned order.
He said the ministry allowed the broadcast and did not listen to the other side and simply took the channel’s statement that it would follow the broadcast rules.
On August 28, the high court refused to impose a pre-broadcast ban on Sudarshan TV.
He had sent notices to the Center, the Press Council of India, the Association of News Broadcasters and Sudarshan News about a statement made by lawyer Firoz Iqbal Khan, who raised a complaint related to the program.
The higher court had said that prima facie, the petition has raised important issues related to the protection of constitutional rights.
(With PTI inputs)
.
