Supreme Court Prohibits Telecast of Bindas Bol on Sudarshan News Till 17th September

Must Read

Madras High Court Relegates Parties to Complete the Trial With a Direction to the Family Court to Determine if the Suit Was Premature.

The husband V.K. Uzhair filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution against the order...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

Follow us

The Supreme Court, on 15th September, passed an injunction prohibiting Sudarshan News from telecasting its show ‘Bindaas Bol’. The Bench observed that based on the aired episodes, the content, tenor, and object of the show seemed to entail hate speech.

Brief Facts of the Case

The present petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. It prayed for urgent directions prohibiting the telecast of ‘Bindaas Bol’ on Sudarshan news. It relied on a transcript of a 49-second promotion clip of the show. The petition contended that the statements contained in the transcript are derogatory of the entry of Muslims in the civil services. The Court on 28th August had declined to issue a pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction stating that the transcript is unverified and the court needs to be circumspect in imposing such restrictions.

This matter was heard again on 15th September.

Arguments

The Petitioners contended that the content of the episodes formed hate speech against the Muslim Community. Further, they argued that the telecast vilifies the community by portraying it to be involved in an act of terror in infiltrating the civil services of India.

They added that the circumstances have changed since the earlier hearing. In the course of the telecast, false statements have been made in connection with the Muslim Community and civil services. They state that Muslims have a greater upper age limit and are allowed more attempts in comparison to Hindus. 

The Petitioners call it an orchestrated attempt to target the Muslim Community as being involved in a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services. 

Further, the Fifth Respondent has placed promotional videos in the public realm on their Twitter handle. This invited the response to a large number of persons, that bordered on hatred towards the Muslim community.

The Respondent argued that the Fifth Respondent has embarked on an investigative exercise. This is a part of the fundamental duty of a journalist to convey information to the public. The programs raise issues about national security. It has been submitted that the contents of the programs state the involvement of foreign funding.

On these grounds, they urged this Court to decline the request of the Petitioners to grant an interim injunction particularly having regard to the earlier order passed by this Court.

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that prima facie it does appear to the Court that the intent, object, and purpose of the episodes which have been telecast is to vilify the Muslim community. It added that this is an insidious attempt to insinuate that the community is involved in a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services. Several statements in the episodes, which have been drawn to the attention of the Court are not erroneous but were made in wanton disregard of the truth. There is no relaxation either in the age limit or in the number of attempts available to the Muslim community in the civil services. The drift, tenor, and content of the episodes are to bring the community into public hatred and disrepute.

The Court is to ensure compliance with the Programme Code. Rule 6(1)(c) of the Cable and Television Networks (Regulation) Rules stipulates that no program containing an attack on religion or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes should be allowed. Rule 6(1)(d) prohibits defamatory, false material, or material containing half-truths or suggestive innuendoes. A breach of the Code invites sanctions under Section 19 and 20 of the Regulation Act of 1995.

The Court took notice of the change in circumstances and on this basis, the episodes have been aired. It is thus necessary to interdict any further telecast.

Court’s Order 

SC listed the matter on the broadcast of ‘Bindas Bol’ on Sudarshan TV on September 17. The Court prohibited the further airing of episodes during the pendency of the case.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -