Thread by @utkarsh_aanand

#SudarshanNews matter commences in the #SupremeCourt with sr adv Sanjay Hegde making an appearance for #ZakatFoundation. He says this is a non-sectarian group, doing social works.

Hegde says #ZakatFoundation is above board, doesn't conduct residential programmes.

Justice DY Chandrachud asks Hegde to take a call whether they want to officially intervene: "We will allow that..more the merrier. But you first decide."

Hegde seeks time till Monday.

Sr adv Shyam Divan starts arguing for #SudarshanNews & @SureshChavhanke.

Divan says the interim decision to ban the telecast may not be the wisest decision by a constitutional court that is expected to give widest amplitude to the right of free speech.

Divan submits @SureshChavhanke believes he is very solid on facts, he has conducted an investigative journalism. He has contacted those being discussed. He is not against any particular community & that what he is doing is in national interest.

This isn't a channel that sprung up y'day. It has been there for 15 yrs. It is not a shoot & scoot enterprise. The channel has submitted to all laws and regulations & hasn't been held guilty for any violation till date. In case, it has to undergo a scrutiny, it will: Divan

Divan reads out from the affidavit of @SureshChavhanke to state that the thrust of his show to highlight a possible threat to security of the nation by attempts to infiltrate the bureaucracy by terror-related organisations.
#SudarshanNews also contacted #ZakatFoundation.

Divan continues citing the affidavit, which talks about funding of #ZakatFoundation & its alleged links with fugitive Zakir Naik, other terror groups.

#SudarshanNews

Divan refers to slides from the show, saying people can respond through criticism or by not watching it at all but the idea of pre-telecast censorship doesn't go along with a body of #SupremeCourt judgments.

He adds there are rules & bodies in place to examine such issues

Divan is currently referring to a 2017 judgment by the #SupremeCourt, which also had Justice Chandrachud as one of the judges on the bench.

This judgment acknowledged existence of self-regulatory & governmental mechanism to deal with complaints against TV channels.

Divan adds there is no law to impose prior restraint on TV shows.

Constitutional courts are to extend free speech & not do anything otherwise.

"Let us not go there as what #SupremeCourt can do, high courts can also do & they will start doing this."

#SudarshanNews

Making someone feel uncomfortable is also a facet of free speech. It has to follow the rules & has to be within limits. If those norms are followed, just because someone doesn't like something being telecast shouldn't give a cause of pre-telecast censorship: Divan

Now that we have explained everything on affidavit after telecasting 4 episodes, it takes out our case from the ambit of censorship. It is clearly a permissible speech. We have now moved past the area of pre-telecast censorship. Allow telecast of remaining episodes: Divan

There is a right to project my view, bring out certain facts within the permissible results. Allow the remaining episodes to be telecast. There is no incitement to violence here. What's being shown is within the permissible limits. Allow us to telecast remaining 6 episodes: Divan

Justice Chandrachud says the bench will take a break for 45 min and then come back with questions for Divan.

The judge also points out the benefit of virtual courts: "This was a very focused 1.5 hrs of arguments. We don't think it was possible in a physical court."

Hearing resumes.

SG Tushar Mehta submits if the court is inclined to lift the restraint, he may have nothing to say on the aspect of interim order.

Justice Chandrachud begins by saying SC is aware that prior restraint is a matter of extreme caution & is a slippery slope.

The judge adds he is also mindful that what this court does becomes a precedent.

Chandrachud J now cites various slides from the show to show the "tenor" of @SureshChavhanke.

Chandrachud J: We have no problem if it is about NGOs & funding but the problems arise when you paint a whole community with a certain colour & implicate them in destabilising the nation.

#SudarshanNews

"The tenor appears to be young Muslims in civil services is a part of the conspiracy to take over civil services. Can we allow the media to target a particular community and implicate them in such a manner," Justice Chandrachud asks Divan.

Divan responds: I have stated this on oath that I have no problems in any meritorious candidate from any community in joining civil services. The tenor has to be understood in the context of the real message the show wishes to communicate.

"Take for example the recent story by Indian Express on some vital leaders under surveillance. It may or may not interest anyone but it is a story that should come out in the open. The story doesn't mean to vilify an entire nation or any particular community," argues Divan.

About the slides referred to by the bench, Divan says the nature of the medium that TV is, will require simplification. The anchor is trying to sell a point. This may not satisfy the highest standards of journalism but it can't still allow prior restraint.

Chandrachud: The moment you refer to a #Muslim, you put a flame, you show a man in a green t-shirt & beard. What's this stereotyping?

Divan: I agree with my lords. Now that the views of this court have been widely & clearly conveyed, I feel these concerns will be taken care of.

Chandrachud J: An organisation A funds various members of a particular community & that organisation may have some funding from an objectionable group. Will it be right to say all these candidates have links to terror groups?

One can certainly probe the angles of funding etc but to brand an entire community like this are our concerns... concerned about divisive commentaries: Chandrachud J

"We espouse free speech. We are conscious of the grave dangers that injunction at a pre-broadcast stage has.. Some civil court issuing an injunction against a panchayat polls. We don't want this to become the law of the land," adds Justice Chandrachud.

Justice Indu Malhotra: Two things are objectionable. One, the flames should be taken off. Second, a man is shown in green T-Shirt running with a Rs 500 Cr tag. We shouldn't dub a community like this. These two should be taken off.

Divan: My client has heard the message.

Divan: Let this not be an order of the court

Chandrachud J: We want you to come to us voluntarily & tell us what you propose to do to assuage our apprehensions.

"Let the market place of ideas furnish. Especially as the Supreme Court, we have seen emergency too."

While we respect freedom of media, let this message to go to the media as well that any particular community shouldn't become a target. Ultimately we all exist as a nation, which has to be cohesive & not against any community: Chandrachud J

Chandrachud J: We don't want to do censorship. We are not the censor board. We want your client to come to us and tell us how he wants to assuage our apprehensions.

On being asked, SG informs the bench that the rules have been given wide publicity & for radio, a draft legislation has been put in public domain for comments.

Chandrachud J now turns hiw focus to News Broadcasters' Assoc, saying it appears to be "toothless".

Chandrachud J: NBA says it can only impose a penalty of Rs 1 lakh. Besides, those channels which are not its members, they can't do anything. There remains a lot to be done with regard to self-regulation.

SG: Matter about self-regulation is already pending before another bench.

SG: Since that matter is already pending before another bench, this bench may limit its examination to #SudarshanNews.

Chandrachud J: We understand the reluctance of the Govt for this bench to take up the issue.

Chandrachud J: It is like a nuclear missile, the #SupremeCourt of India staying the telecast. But we had to step in because nobody did anything. Your Under Secretary didn't do anything after the telecast. So this could be an opportunity for us to look at these issues.

Chandrachud J: Issue of self-regulation can't be a standalone thing. The Govt has to give them some teeth. Even a former judge of this court has written to the Govt to give NBA more powers.

Justice KM Joseph to Divan: If you commit violations, can you be convicted under the Cable TV Act?

The judge differentiates between a cable TV and a broadcaster, saying most of the provisions won't apply to a broadcaster.

#SudarshanNews

Justice Joseph: The programme shows grave disrespect to this community.

Divan: I completely disagree with you. This may be your personal opinion but many others who have watched it didn't think so.

Everyone wants to be at the power centre. What you are doing is that you are marginalising those who should be brought to mainstream. By doing this, you will be driving them in the wrong hands: Justice Joseph.

Where are we headed, asks Joseph J referring to slides from the show.

Joseph J: The bottom line is you have maligned an entire community.

Divan: I fully acknowledge & respect your entitlement to have a personal opinion, & so do several others. Likewise, I am not entitled to breach any code.

"In our legal scheme, we can't have a constitutional court examining the content & such issues at the first instance. There is a code that will scrutinise my content," says Divan.

He adds @SureshChavhanke will file a further affidavit.

Joseph J: Even this Govt has been trying to promote Muslims & all other backward classes. We had so many Muslims passing out in civil services but you run it down.

SG Mehta: It isn't 'This Govt' or 'That Govt'. Govt is a continuing entity that works as per its policies.

Divan: My client will file a clear affidavit by end of this week & hopefully, this should address most of the concerns of the court. If there are still deficiencies, the court may tell us. We would hope this is to the satisfaction of the court.

#SudarshanNews

Adv Shadan Farasat: I have three small points. What's the worth of an undertaking this person gave to Min of Info & Broadcasting & then breached it for 100 times. His 2nd & 3rd episodes are objectively hate speech. And third, a constitutional court should issue such restraints.

Chandrachud J: Do the #SupremeCourt do it everytime? It might have been easy to do it in this case & you may say we did the right thing. But the danger is what if courts across the country start doing it in hundreds of cases. Or should we not create a systemic change?

NBA counsel: We aren't a toothless org. We make channels apologise on prime time which hurt a lot more than Rs 1L fine.

Chandrachud J: Do you watch TV? If yes, how has anything changed? Has the discourse changed?

NBA: It has improved.

Chandrachud J to NBA counsel: You can also come back with a response as to how we can strengthen your hands, especially because not every channel is your member. We can make you more effective so you come back with suggestions on this

Press Council of India counsel Preetesh Kapoor: Newspapers show more restraint than the TV channels. It is high time to have some guidelines for them.

SG Mehta: That's okay Mr Kapoor but you may not say anything since this case isn't about a newspaper.

Chandrachud J asks SG Mehta to also consider how the Govt can strengthen the arm of the self-regulatory bodies.

Asv Gautam Bhatia asked by SC to assist on the point of jurisdiction of this court in such cases.

Next hearing Monday at 2 PM.