1. Writ petition under Article 32 challenging news broadcasts for allegedly promoting hate speech and vilifying a religious community in violation of the Programme Code. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 767
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
FIROZ IQBAL KHAN - Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 956 of 2020
Decided On : 15-09-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anoop George Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bambhani, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AORMr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijendar Singh, Adv. Ms. Amita Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Rajput, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankur Gulyani Panda, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anoop George Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bambhani, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AORMr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijendar Singh, Adv. Ms. Amita Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vinay Rajput, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankur Gulyani Panda, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Adv.
The Court held that pre-broadcast injunctions are justified when content prima facie constitutes hate speech, vilifies a religious community, and violates the statutory Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to uphold constitutional values and ensure social harmony.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32- Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Sections 19 and 20 - Telecast of a programme - Derogatory - Writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution was moved for urgent directions since telecast of a programme titled “Bindaas Bol” was to take place at 8 pm on Sudarshan news, news channel of fifth respondent- Petitioner relied on transcript of a promotional clip of forty-nine seconds - Contention was that clip contains statements which are derogatory of the entry of Muslims in civil services - Court declined to issue a pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction - Order of this Court dated , certain developments have taken place - On same day as previous order of this Court, a Single Judge of Delhi High Court restrained fifth respondent from broadcasting proposed programme and directed Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider - Whether there was a violation of Programme Code under the provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 – Held, Court are of previous order dated declining to issue a pre-broadcast injunction, Court are of the view that there has been a change of circumstances, at least, prima facie, on basis of the record which has emerged before this Court - Court was truly in realm of a pre-broadcast injunction when even the first programme was to be aired - Since then, episodes have been aired between which indicate content, tenor and object of telecast in question - Fifth respondent shall stand injuncted from making any further telecast in continuation of or similar to episodes which were telecast on 11, 12, 13 and either under the same or any other title or caption – Order accordingly.
Act Referred
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS REGULATION ACT: S.19, S.20
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS REGULATION RULES: R.6, R.6(1)(c), R.6(1)(d)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS REGULATION RULES: R.6, R.6(1)(c), R.6(1)(d)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege hate speech and factual inaccuracies; respondents assert investigative journalism, national security concerns, and the high threshold for granting pre-broadcast injunctions. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The broadcasts prima facie vilify a religious community using palpably false statements in wanton disregard of truth to incite public hatred and disrepute. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Pre-broadcast injunctions are permissible when aired content establishes a prima facie intent to vilify a community, violating the statutory Programme Code and constitutional values. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Interim injunction granted restraining further telecasts of the programme or similar content. (Para 19 )
6. Under what circumstances can a court grant a pre-broadcast injunction despite general circumspection?
A pre-broadcast injunction may be granted when a change in circumstances occurs—such as the airing of initial episodes—that prima facie demonstrates the content's intent to vilify a community or breach statutory codes. (Para 2 , 18 )
7. What are the statutory restrictions on programme content under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Rules?
Rule 6(1)(c) prohibits programmes containing attacks on religions or communities or promoting communal attitudes, while Rule 6(1)(d) prohibits content that is defamatory, false, or reflective of half-truths and suggestive innuendos. (Para 17 )
8. How does the court evaluate the dissemination of palpably false information targeting a religious community?
Such content is viewed with grave disfavour as it violates constitutional values of co-existence and the statutory Programme Code by bringing a community into public hatred and disrepute. (Para 16 , 17 )
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
