Delhi HC Refuses to Lift Stay on Sudarshan TV

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court refused to lift its stay on Sudarshan TV’s broadcast on Muslim “infiltration” in government services (Syed Mujtaba v. UOI & Ors).

Brief Facts

Sudarshan TV moved the High Court for removal of stay. This was in light of the Supreme Court order refusing to grant any such relief against the broadcast. Sudarshan TV proposed to run a broadcast which claimed to be a “Big Exposé on Conspiracy to infiltrate Muslims in Government Service”. The former and present students of Jamia Millia Islamia University moved the High Court. They sought prohibition on the airing of the broadcast. After this, the High Court had issued an order to stay.

Contentions

Advocate Shadan Farasat was the advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners had argued that the proposed broadcast sought to defame, attack and incite hatred against Jamia Millia Islamia. This included its students, alumni, and the Muslim community at large. They contended that the proposed broadcast constituted hate speech and criminal defamation. This was in terms of Sections 153A(1), 153B(1), 295A, and 499 of Indian Penal Code, and violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and its Rules.

Court’s Observation

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla was set up. The hearing took place after 7 pm on 29th August 2020. The Delhi High Court was in line with the Supreme Court order. It opined that the power to decide whether the broadcast was permissible, lied with the competent authority under the Central Government. It directed Sudarshan TV to reply to the Central Government’s notice by September 1. It granted 48 hours to the authority to decide the issue. This was after giving an opportunity to Sudarshan TV and its Editor-in-Chief, Suresh Chavhanke to present their case.

However, opening that prima facie, the broadcast was in violation of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, the Court refused to vacate the stay. It directed Sudarshan TV to not air the broadcast till then. In response to the petition, the Central Government had informed the Court that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had already issued notice to Sudarshan TV with respect to the proposed broadcast.

Court’s Decision

While giving liberty to the parties to take appropriate legal action after the Central Government’s decision, the Court disposed of the petition before it.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -