<p>A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Centre's decision to "ban" a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots in the country, alleging it was "malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional".</p>.<p>The PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma also urged the apex court to call and examine the BBC documentary - both parts I and II - and sought action against persons who were responsible and were involved directly and indirectly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.</p>.<p>Sharma said that in his PIL he has raised a constitutional question and the top court has to decide whether citizens have the right under Article 19 (1) (2) to see news, facts and reports on the 2002 Gujarat riots.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/bjps-obc-morcha-to-discuss-bbc-documentary-1185618.html" target="_blank">BJP's OBC Morcha to discuss BBC documentary</a></strong></p>.<p>He has sought direction to quash the order dated January 21, 2023 of the Ministry of the Information and Broadcasting, terming it as illegal, malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.</p>.<p>His plea said whether the central government can curtail freedom of press which is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>"Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the president, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the central government?" the PIL said.'</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/limiting-access-to-bbc-documentary-on-modi-a-self-goal-for-bjp-govt-1185395.html" target="_blank">Limiting access to BBC documentary on Modi: A self-goal for BJP govt</a></strong></p>.<p>It claimed the BBC documentary has "recorded facts" which are also "evidence" and can be used to further the cause of justice for the victims.</p>.<p>On January 21, the Centre issued directions for blocking multiple YouTube videos and Twitter posts sharing links to the controversial BBC documentary "India: The Modi Question", according to sources.</p>
<p>A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Centre's decision to "ban" a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots in the country, alleging it was "malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional".</p>.<p>The PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma also urged the apex court to call and examine the BBC documentary - both parts I and II - and sought action against persons who were responsible and were involved directly and indirectly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.</p>.<p>Sharma said that in his PIL he has raised a constitutional question and the top court has to decide whether citizens have the right under Article 19 (1) (2) to see news, facts and reports on the 2002 Gujarat riots.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/bjps-obc-morcha-to-discuss-bbc-documentary-1185618.html" target="_blank">BJP's OBC Morcha to discuss BBC documentary</a></strong></p>.<p>He has sought direction to quash the order dated January 21, 2023 of the Ministry of the Information and Broadcasting, terming it as illegal, malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.</p>.<p>His plea said whether the central government can curtail freedom of press which is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>"Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the president, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the central government?" the PIL said.'</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/limiting-access-to-bbc-documentary-on-modi-a-self-goal-for-bjp-govt-1185395.html" target="_blank">Limiting access to BBC documentary on Modi: A self-goal for BJP govt</a></strong></p>.<p>It claimed the BBC documentary has "recorded facts" which are also "evidence" and can be used to further the cause of justice for the victims.</p>.<p>On January 21, the Centre issued directions for blocking multiple YouTube videos and Twitter posts sharing links to the controversial BBC documentary "India: The Modi Question", according to sources.</p>