Thread by @utkarsh_aanand

#SudarshanNews matter commences in #SupremeCourt with sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi mentioning he is appearing for NBF (National Broadcasters' Federation).

Rohatgi informs NBF is the largest body of channels in India, having majority of regional channels as its members. He adds NBF wants to put its views forth on regulations relating to TV channels. Former CJI KS Khehar has agreed to be a part of the NBF's self-regulatory body.

Adv Sai Deepak J mentions applications on behalf of @OpIndia_com, @indiccollective & Upword Foundn.

The application contends #SupremeCourt doesn't have jurisdiction to frame guidelines. He adds there are over 1000 reports how media has been reporting about religious issues.

Justice Chandrachud observes intervenors may not raise preliminary objections & that they will be heard in the end.

Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani too seeks to intervene on behalf of Malayalam daily Janmabhumi.

#SudarshanNews

Bench asks @SudarshanNewsTV, @SureshChavhanke to read out the affidavit filed. Adv Vishnu Jain reads out but bench takes exception to mentioning about NDTV in the affidavit.

Chandrachud: "This is a gratuitous submission. We didn't ask you to tell us what was telecast by #NDTV?"

Chandrachud: "You don't have a right to shoot your mouth off just because something was asked of you during the hearing. Somebody in 2031 starts mentioning about your program in 2020 then what about passage of time? That can't be answer to our question."

Chandrachud J: Answer us two things: Do you think you compiled with all laws when you telecast 4 episodes in the past? Second, will your remaining episodes be in the same tenor?

Jain answers in affirmative to both. Yes, he replied to both.

Chandrachud J: How one complies with law could be a matter of perception too. We asked you two questions & you answered yes & yes. We will consider it now.

Jain: Let me show you all 4 episodes min by min & will clarify each & everything.

Chandrachud J: This has never been a line of precedent in civilised jurisdiction. If someone objects to a book, it can't be that read all 700 pages & then point out what's wrong.

#SudarshanNews

Adv Shadan Farasat, appearing for 3 Jamia students, contend it is failure & abdication of its duties by the Govt that compelled this court to intervene.

He adds 2014 judgment by this court on hate speech is just a dead letter & Govt never did anything.

Farasat: Nobody can raise objection when the court itself has watched a program & then decided to inject it.

The Govt was given an opportunity to take action by the HC but it didn't. It is a case of inaction by the Govt which forced the court to step in.

Farasat continues citing excerpts from #SudarshanNews show to make a point how the entire program is a hate speech & maligns an entire community with obnoxious statements & innuendos.

#SudarshanNews

Justice Indu Jain says some statements by @SureshChavhanke is in response to what Akbaruddin Owaisi & Abdul Rauf were equally objectionable.

Indu J: As per sr adv Shyan Divan, the thrust of the show was funding by terror organizations.

Indu J: We are all against deriding any particular community. They are our brothers and sisters, and we respect them. But according to Mr Divan, the program was about how the fundings took place.

Farasat: The programme is there for anyone to see.

#SudarshanNews

The theme of the show is Muslims are there at your door step to infiltrate everything & you better wake up, contends Farasat.

He reads out the excerpts of Madhu Kishwar & some other panelists on #SudarshanTV to say this is a case of clear hate speech.

Effectively, the Muslims are called 'eastern me saanp' by @SureshChavhanke in his programme.

Chandrachud J: To what extent, it is an attack on Zakat Found & to what extent it is an attack on Muslims.

Chandrachud J: #SupremeCourt may not have to conduct this exercise if this is an attack on Zakat.

A lot of what you are reading may be in a very bad taste but then the submission will be who asked you to watch it. Better read a novel. So you have to be careful in submissions

A hate speech doesn't exist in complete isolation but it operates in certain context & facts, says Farasat.

He adds @SureshChavhanke was given a chance to protect his right to free speech but he is said he will continue in the same genre. It is hate speech, repeats Farasat.

Farasat: Such hate speech diminishes a group's right to equality & equal opportunities. It is an affront to dignity. "I may remain a citizen of this country but it is just a hollow promise. A pervasive environment of hate speech will deprive me of real rights & opportunities

There is no good time for a bad thing, submits Farasat as he adds there should be a permanent injunction against #SudarshanTV for telecasting this programme.

Farasat says the danger will never go away & hence, there can't a postponement.

Farasat invokes "constitutional morality" to state the term "morality" in Art 19(2) must include constitutional morality. And hence, the #SupremeCourt has all the authority to stop further telecast of any programme, emphasizes the lawyer.

Farasat: I am not saying this court should step in every case of violation of program code.

Chandrachud J: Court doesn't have to become the enforcer of the program code. The court is to protect human dignity, liberty & equality. We have to protect the values under the preamble.

Chandrachud J: This is a rare constitutional power that must be wielded with extreme caution. It could be LGBTQ, an identified minority group or the disabled. Our jurisdiction can't be invoked when there are alternative civil & personal remedies

Chandrachud J: This program does deal with certain issues of public interest when it talks about foreign funding of Zakat or reservation for Muslims as an OBC. So we have to look at this aspect as well.

We must now see if we go ahead with injunction, what kind of injunction?

Chandrachud J: We are also dealing with the nature of the injunction. Do we allow him to go ahead with the protective part of the speech & restrain them for the different part? We will have to decide on this aspect too.

Farasat: Continue with injunction.

Chandrachud J: But that's the problem. He has an absolute injunction right now. His not taking the opportunity given by us doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to let him have his right under Art 19.

Chandrachud J says the court can't dwell on specifics as to what can be removed or added in a particular program.

"So what has to the nature of the order when we lift the injunction, we must also consider that. There are post-telecast mechanism under the criminal law too."

Sai: This court must also focus on the chilling effect of such injunction orders

Chandrachud: You are absolutely right. You are spot on. We are extremely concerned about balance of rights of dignity with free speech. There is an amorphous group of people here.

Bench will hear #SudarshanNews matter on Wednesday. After the petitioners concluded, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to be heard at length.