Can't become enforcer of programme code, but have to protect dignity: SC on Sudarshan TV

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it does not have to become the enforcer of the programme code for a TV channel but still it has to protect human dignity, liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

Dealing with the issue of pre-telecast ban on a programme by Sudarshan TV related to alleged infiltration of Muslims into the UPSC, a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud said this (pre-telecast ban) is a rare constitutional power that must be wielded with extreme caution.

"Our jurisdiction can't be invoked when there are alternative civil and personal remedies," the bench said, adding court can't dwell on specifics as to what can be removed or added in a particular programme.

After detailed arguments by advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Jamia Milia Islamia students, the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph, said there are post-telecast mechanism under the criminal law too if a programme promoted hate speech and targetted a community affecting their right to dignity.

"This program does deal with certain issues of public interest when it talks about foreign funding of Zakat or reservation for Muslims as an OBC. So we have to look at this aspect as well," the bench said.

The court posted the matter for consideration on Wednesday.

At the outset, the court pulled up Sudarshan TV editor Suresh Chavhanke for raising the issue of NDTV's programme of 2008 on 'Hindu Terror', with the most sacred symbols. "You don't have a right to shoot your mouth off just because something was asked of you," the bench told his counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain.

During the hearing, advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for news portal OpIndia and others, said the court has to consider a question of the chilling effect of the restraint order.

"We are concerned here right to free speech and dignity. Here the community is an amorphous group and we can't ask them to seek civil remedy," the bench said.

Justice Joseph, for his part, wondered if there any programme in TV which is not offensive and sought to know from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta if the government watched all these episodes if they violated the code.

In his arguments, Farasat contended the four episodes telecast by the TV channel tried to convince the audience that Muslims were their enemy. "Hate speech over a period of times leads to acts of violence," he said.

He cited the example of continuous radio transmissions of hate speech which led to the Rwandan genocide. "Similarly non-Jewish were convinced jews were a threat and Myanmar Buddhists were convinced that Rohingyas were a threat. All this leads to genocide," he said.