JOIN USNupur Sharma case and the trouble with TV debates
The Supreme Court has passed a somewhat landmark order about the peddling of religious hatred and strife across the country.
Chiding suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma before rejecting her petition to have the FIRs filed against her clubbed into one, the highest court of the land has pointed out that not only was she "single-handedly" responsible for the chaos in the country that followed her hateful comments, but the TV channels that decided to hold court in their studios did a giant disservice to the country as well.
It has become routine for prime-time television channels to 'debate' on issues of importance every evening over the last decade or so. However, in these debates, not only are the pros and cons of various opinions, viewpoints and facts discussed, but more often than not, the channels turn into courts of law. You literally have lawyers, plaintiffs, witnesses and judges all present, while the 'jury' is allegedly purported to be the Indian public at large, although laughably limited only to the audience of the channel.
The anchor often does not hesitate to descend into the role of a judge, while some choose to play several of these roles together - moving from one to the other. Those who disagree with the general ideological position of the channel or the anchor are ridiculed and abused in parliamentary language by those on the other end of the ideological spectrum. The more explosively loud anchors sometimes even cross the line and resort to unparliamentary utterances or encourage their favoured guests to do so.
After the prime-time TV concludes, the anchor, with a smug look on their face, proclaims the judgment itself, which is either a polar opposite of what he disagrees with or a loud affirmation of the stand he agrees with, based on his and his employer's ideology or sanction.
This kind of mockery of judicial procedure occurs daily not only in India but also abroad, on channels like the Fox Network in the US, etc. One has every right to disagree with others, but ridiculing each other or resorting to the use of unparliamentary language has become rampant on our Indian channels.
The problem arises when a debate is on a sub judice matter, which was also precisely what the Supreme Court sought to point out.
Last month, when the Gyanvapi Mosque issue was being 'debated' on our television sets, mobile phones, and computers, Nupur Sharma, a vociferous spokesperson of the ruling dispensation, crossed a line that set off sparks not only in India but also in West Asia. She insulted the Prophet of the Muslim faith.
A couple of weeks later, a tailor living in Udaipur, Kanhaiya Lal, was brutally "executed". As some have correctly pointed out, it wasn't a murder but an execution for supporting the hateful, ignorant, and perhaps "nefarious" (as the Supreme Court suggested) comment of Nupur Sharma.
The issue at stake here is not whether one has the right to debate or not, or whether one has the right to discuss religion publicly, but whether it is justified to discuss a matter that is pending before a court publicly. The reason for this is plain and simple. When an issue is being debated in any public forum, it tends to influence similar debates happening in the same public domain or political space.
A routine examination of debates on our national and 'patriotic' news channels would reveal that they are holding court on matters daily that the actual courts of the land are still pondering over. This is a gross violation of the plaintiff's civil liberty and a grosser abuse of one's own. No one has the right to hold a court in this country other than the official courts of the land.
The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed explicitly by the highest safeguards of the Indian Constitution. The only people allowed to judge others under a framework of law are the judges of official courts of the land that are entitled to taking punitive action – be it sending someone to prison or slapping a fine on someone.
If we all start holding courts in every neighbourhood, then we can say goodbye not only to the framework of law but eventually also to the sovereignty of the nation. In that light, one is entitled to question whether television anchors can hold such courts on their channels.
What is also often asked is whether TV debates on 'sub judice' matters could influence court judgments in our country? Would the Ayodhya judgment have been the same if the channels had been denied permission to discuss it? Would the "tukde-tukde gang" member Umar Khalid have been in jail had it not been for 'patriots' anchoring national TV channels and virtually baying for his blood every day while his case was being discussed in court?
This does not imply that the judges get influenced by these so-called debates. It simply means that discussions on sub judice issues could influence the judicial procedure, possibly leading to collateral harm to either side.
The malicious hatred that Nupur Sharma's remark sought to convey towards Muslims may not have affected the Gyanvapi Mosque case, but it did lead to massive protests in India, loud anti-India protests abroad, and eventually the death of a citizen of India by equally (if not more) rabid people on the other side of the ideological spectrum. This is nothing less than tragic, and even as fact-checker Mohd. Zubair is under police custody for social media posts, and human rights activist Teesta Setalvad is behind bars just for helping a complainant, Nupur Sharma is still being allowed to walk free even after the apex court terms her as squarely responsible for spreading hate across the country.
(The author is a research scholar)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.