ORDER :

1. Applications for interventions are allowed.

2. On 28 August 2020, the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was moved for urgent directions since the telecast of a programme titled “Bindaas Bol” was to take place at 8 pm on Sudarshan news, the news channel of the fifth respondent. The petitioner relied on the transcript of a promotional clip of forty-nine seconds. The contention was that the clip contains statements which are derogatory of the entry of Muslims in the civil services. The Court declined to issue a pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction, furnishing the following reasons in paragraph 8 of the order :-

“8. At this stage, we have desisted from imposing a pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction on the basis of an unverified transcript of a forty nine second clip. The Court has to be circumspect in imposing a prior restraint on publication or the airing of views. We note that under statutory provisions, competent authorities are vested with powers to ensure compliance with law, including provisions of the criminal law intended to ensure social harmony and the peaceful coexistence of all communities.”

3. Several interlocutory applications have been moved before this Court including I.A. Nos.91132, 91134, 91167, 91171, 91135, 91136 and 90940 of 2020.

4. This Court has heard submissions from Mr. Anoop Chaudhari, senior counsel, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Ms. Shahrukh Alam and Mr Gautam Bhatia broadly adopting the same position, in support of the petition. Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India has appeared on behalf of the Union of India. Mr. Shyam Divan, senior counsel appeared on behalf of the fifth respondent.

5. The hearings before this Court are to continue on the next available sitting which is on 17 September 2020.

6. Since the order of this Court dated 28 August 2020, certain developments have taken place. On the same day as the previous order of this Court, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court restrained the fifth respondent from broadcasting the proposed programme and directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider whether there was a violation of the Programme Code under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

7. A communication was addressed on 09 September 2020 by the Union Government to the fifth respondent to ensure that the broadcast of the programme is consistent with the provisions of the Programme Code. Since then, episodes of the programme based on the same theme have been broadcast on 11, 12, 13 and 14 September 2020. The remaining episodes comprising of a total of ten episodes are to be broadcast between 15 to 20 September 2020.

8. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the content of the episodes which have been telecast constitutes hate speech directed against the Muslim community. It has been submitted that the telecasts vilify the community by portraying it to be involved in an act of terror or, as it is labelled, “ jehad” in infiltrating the civil services of the nation. Hence, it has been submitted that the restraint which was observed by this Court in declining to issue an order of injunction on 28 August 2020 would warrant a change. It has been submitted that the circumstances which weighed this Court in declining to order a pre-broadcast injunction have substantially been altered. For one thing, it has been emphasized that in the course of the telecast, palpably false statements have been made in connection with the Muslim community, including among them the statements that:

(i) While the upper age limit for Hindus in the civil services examination is 32 years, the age limit for Muslims is 35 years; and

(ii) While six attempts are made available for Hindus to appear for the civil services examination, Muslims are entitled to nine attempts.

10. Screenshots of the programmes which have been aired between 11 and 14 September, 2020 have been placed on record together with transcripts. It has been submitted th