The High Court heard the petition against the broadcast of a program that alleges “infiltration” of Muslims in the bureaucracy
New Delhi:
Episodes on a private television channel about “Muslims infiltrating” government services cannot be broadcast for now, an angry Supreme Court ordered today, calling the show an attempt to vilify Muslims. “It appears 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 … You cannot target a community and mark it in a particular way,” the high court said. preventing Sudarshan TV from broadcasting what it called a “rabid” program.
The power of electronic media to attack a community, damage reputation or tarnish someone’s image is “enormous,” the Supreme Court noted. One of the judges commented that “the problem of electronic media is all about PRTs”, which generates more and more sensationalism that damages people’s reputations and “masquerades as a form of law.”
A bench of three judges convened a panel of five distinguished citizens to develop standards for electronic media. When the Press Council of India said that there are regulations, Judge DY Chandrachud replied: “Really? If things had been so good, we wouldn’t have to watch what we see on TV every day.”
The judges’ sharp comments are significant at a time when some media outlets have come under fire for their boundless coverage and challenged by the ethics of Sushant Singh Rajput’s investigations.
“The power of electronic media is enormous. (Electronic media) can become a focal point by targeting a particular community or groups,” said Judge DY Chandrachud.
“The main complaint is that a particular group is managing to enter the civil service,” he said, referring to the Sudarshan television program. “How insidious is this? Such insidious accusations put a question mark on UPSC exams, they sprinkle UPSC. Such accusations without factual basis, how can this be allowed? Can such programs be allowed in a free society”, said the judge.
“Reputation can be damaged, image can be tarnished. How to control this? The state cannot do this,” said Judge Chandrachud, who said it would be difficult for any government to regulate private channels.
The judge, addressing Sudarshan TV’s lawyer, Shyam Diwan, said: “Your client is doing the nation a disservice and does not accept that India is a fusion point of diverse culture. Your client must exercise his freedom with caution.”
Judge KM Joseph suggested: “We need to look at visual media ownership. The entire equity pattern of the company should be on site for the public. The revenue model of that company should also be tested to see if the government is putting more ads in one and less in another. “
Judge Joseph said the media “cannot violate the standards they prescribe.” He commented that some presenters “silence the speaker” and ask questions.
“The next thing in debates is to see the role of the presenter. How you listen when others speak, but check in televised debates the percentage of time that the presenter takes to speak.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta argued that the freedom of a journalist is paramount. “It would be disastrous for any democracy to control the press,” he said.
The government attorney pointed out that there was a “parallel medium”, in addition to electronic media, where a laptop and a journalist can make thousands of people view their content.
“We are not on social media today. We cannot choose not to regulate one thing because we cannot regulate all of them,” Judge Chandrachud replied.
“I am talking about electronic media and print media. Judge Joseph’s concerns must be addressed while respecting journalistic freedom. There are a lot of web portals whose ownership is different from what they show,” Mehta said.
Judge Joseph said that journalistic freedom “is not absolute.” A journalist, he said, shares the same freedom as other citizens.
“There is no separate freedom for journalists like in the United States. We need journalists who are fair in their debates,” the judge said.
Judge Chandrachud added: “When journalists operate, they need to work around the right to a fair comment. Looking at criminal investigations, the media often focus on only one part of the investigation.”
He said the “best in the nation” should suggest measures for discussion and then come up with standards. “Now an anchor points to a community. To say that we are a democracy, we need to have certain standards,” Judge Chandrachud said.
The high court had previously refused to maintain the television broadcast, but agreed to examine the broader issue of balancing freedom of expression with other constitutional values, including the fundamental right to equality and fair treatment for each segment of citizens.
.
