We know weight of pre-broadcast injunction, but had to step in as no one else did, says SC

new delhi: In a scathing order, the Supreme Court of India on Friday, while hearing the case against Sudarshan TV's controversial "UPSC jihad" programme, said that it was fully aware of the consequences of the top court issuing an injunction on a broadcast before telecast but it "had to step in" because self-regulatory bodies such as the News Broadcasters' Association and the Centre were not doing anything.

"It is like a nuclear missile, the Supreme Court of India staying the telecast. But we had to step in because nobody else did anything," a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said. In fact, Justice Chandrachud said, "Let a message go to the media that we need to fight for a nation that is inclusive, that is able."

While the Supreme Court had allowed the show to be broadcast, refusing to stay it based on promos, it had put a stay on the show after four episodes of the 10-part series were aired. The court had at the time held that the show "vilified" Muslims. At the hearing on Friday, the bench also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, continued the injunction till the next date of hearing on September 21, instructing the channel and its editor Suresh Chavhanke to file another affidavit in the matter making amply clear what good faith efforts it is willing to undertake to ensure that the dignity of the affected community is protected. The court asked, "Can the media be asked to target whole set of communities?"

Meanwhile, Chavhanke, who attended the hearing, forwarded his defence through senior advocate Shyam Divan, arguing that while his show is based on "factual reports", it "could be wrong" but the way to address this was not through injunctions but through "contestations".

Furthermore, the bench headed by Justice Chandrachud hauled up the Central government, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for not taking action against the channel and its show. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, as per the top court's earlier order had expeditiously decided on the show, allowing it to be aired after accepting an undertaking from the channel that it would not violate any programme

codes.

But the bench, during the hearing said, "But that was all your Under Secretary did. He didn't do anything after the telecast. The officer never pursued this to examine if there was any breach."

However, Justice Chandrachud, mindful of consequences, said, "We are conscious of the grave dangers that injunction at a pre-broadcast stage has. Tomorrow there will be some civil court issuing an injunction against some broadcast relating to panchayat polls and all that. We don't want this to become the law of the land." He added that despite the court's constitutional duty to protect freedom of speech, it also had a responsibility to protect human dignity. Justice Chandrachud said, "We have the constitutional duty to protect human dignity and that is as important as protecting free

speech.

Chavhanke's episodes on "Bindas Bol" have misrepresented data and information in government notification to insinuate that there was a "conspiracy" by Muslims to "infiltrate India's bureaucracy". Both he and the channel have had a history of stereotyping Muslims. In fact, Justice Chandrachud also addressed this during Friday's

hearing.