《𝐒𝐂 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭》

Justice DY Chandrachud led bench to hear a plea against the controversial Sudarshan TV programme touted as a ''big expose on the conspiracy" regarding Muslims "infiltrating government service''.

#SupremeCourt
@SureshChavhanke

Though the top court had refused to impose a pre-broadcast ban, it had issued notice to the Centre, the Press Council of India, the News Broadcasters Association and Sudarshan News returnable today

#SudarshanNews
@GSUPSC
@IASassociation

Meanwhile former civil servants including Amitabha Pande and Navrekha Sharma have made an informal collective "Constitutional Conduct Group" and have filed a plea seeking to intervene. Plea seeks an authoritative pronouncement on "hate speech"

@Vakeel_Sb
#UPSC_Jihad

Senior Adv Anoop Chaudhari for petitioners: This is a prima facie case of violation of law. Delhi HC has issued notice on the plea challenging the green signal given by I&B ministry.

Chaudhari: If you read the transcript you will see that they say Muslims are infiltrating the Civil services. They say how Muslim OBCs are eating the share of other OBCs.

Chaudhari: The show has graphs they have used words like "ha***** gaddar" in the show. Very unfortunate words. There are only 292 Muslim officers in the services.

Chaudhari: Broadcasts divided into 9 parts. Only 2 parts have been streamed now.

Justice Chandrachud: The petition seeks guidelines as to how media should report some issues. Some guidelines for self regulation of media. Else there will be a divisive way of airing views

Justice Chandrachud: We are not saying states will impose any such guidelines as it would be an anathema to Article 19 (1)(a)

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta: so far as pre publication restraint is concerned, there is a law laid down in Bonnard case of 1891. The principle laid down has been followed till the 2000's

Justice KM Joseph: We need to look at the ownership of the visual media. Entire shareholding pattern of the company must be on site for public. Revenue model of that company should also be put up to check if government is putting more ads in one and less in another

Justice Joseph: Media can't fall foul of standards prescribed by themselves. Next in debates one needs to see the role of anchor. How one listens when others speak But check in the TV debates the percentage of time taken by anchor to speak. They mute the speaker and ask questions

Justice Joseph: The freedom of media is on behalf of the citizens.

Justice Chandrachud: power of electronic media is huge. The electronic media can become focal point by targeting particular communities or groups. The anchors grievance is that a particular group is gaining entry into civil services. How insidious is this?

Justice Chandrachud: Such insidious charges also puts a question mark on the UPSC exams. Aspersions have been casr on UPSC. Such allegations without any factual basis, how can this be allowed? Can such programs be allowed in a free society?

Justice Chandrachud: Reputations can be damaged, image can be tarnished. How to control this? State cannot do this

SC: Shouldn't there be enforceable standards that the media profess itself to so that Article 19(1)(a) is upheld

SG Mehta: freedom of the journalist is supreme. There are two aspects of the statements by Justice Joseph. It would be disastrous for any democracy to control press

SG: There is also a parallel media other than electronic media where a laptop and a journalist can lead to lakhs of people viewing their content.

Justice Chandrachud: we are not on social media today. we cannot choose not to regulate one thing because we cannot regulate all

SG: I am talking about electronic media and print media. Justice Joseph's concerns have to be addressed by giving respect to journalistic freedom. There are large number of web portals whose ownership is different than what they show

Justice Joseph: When we talk about journalistic freedom, it is not absolute. He shares same freedom as like other citizens. There is no separate freedom for journalists like in the US. We need journalists who are fair in their debates

Justice Chandrachud: When journalists operate, they need to work around right to fair comment. See criminal investigation, media often focuses only one part of the investigation.

Justice Chandrachud: Let the best within the nation suggest measures which we can help debate on our platform and then arrive at standards..now an anchor is targeting one particular community. To say we are a democracy we need to have certain standards in place.

Senior Adv Shyam Divan appears for Sudarshan TV: we need time to reply

Justice Chandrachud: your client is doing a disservice to the nation and is not accepting India is a melting point of diverse culture. Your client needs to exercise his freedom with caution.

Senior Adv Divan: I have been instructed that it is an investigative story. Resf we need to file an affidavit

Bench takes a 45 minute lunch break.