Bar and Bench Profile picture
Sep 21, 2020 72 tweets 21 min read Read on X
Dᴀʏ 5 Sᴜᴘʀᴇᴍᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ ʜᴇᴀʀɪɴɢ- 'UPSC Jɪʜᴀᴅ' ᴄᴀsᴇ

Justice DY Chandrachud led three-judge bench will resume hearing plea seeking stay on @SudarshanNewsTV 's #UPSC_Jihad case. Petitioners to press for continuation of injunction

#SupremeCourt
@SureshChavhanke
The hearing resumes after Senior Adv Shyam Divan made detailed submissions on Sept 18 detailing the nexus between @zakatindia and terror linked charitable trusts etc thereby justifying their claim of how it is "UPSC Jihad"
Meanwhile, Zakat Foundation of India has moved Supreme Court to intervene and provide clarification on charges leveled against it by Sudarshan News. @zakatindia claims that the show is nothing but and deep rooted malaise against Muslims @SureshChavhanke
However, the lead petitioner has submitted that @SureshChavhanke held a show after stay was granted by SC in which he criticized the interim order of the top court and conduct a show "replete with hate speech."
Day 5 hearing to begin. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi is on screen today.

@SudarshanNewsTV
@SureshChavhanke
#UPSC_Jihad
Senior Adv Rohatgi: I have filed an impleadment application on behalf of NBF. I filed it yersterday

#UPSC_Jihad
@SudarshanNewsTV
Rohatgi: News Broadcasters Associations are already a part. But I am the largest body of channels.. I have the majority of all regional channels from all across India. I have said that NBA does not really represent the entire spectrum.
Rohatgi: NBF will inform the court how a self regulation method should be drawn up. I have nothing to say on @SudarshanNewsTV . I am on a larger issue of self regulation and on a different note than NBA
Rohatgi: I need a week to file a reply
Adv J Sai Deepak: We have filed an IA on behalf of @OpIndia_com @indiccollective @upword_ . Primary purpose is to venture into larger area of principles concerning hate speech

Justice Chandrachud: Your contention is SC does not have jurisdiction?

@jsaideepak
J Sai Deepak: it is

Justice Chandrachud: You can only make submissions as an intervenor
J Sai Deepak: Applicants seek to place before this Hon’ble Court a Report titled “A Study on
Contemporary Standards in Religious Reporting by Mass Media”
prepared by @OpIndia_com
which captures approximately 100
instances of patently false reportage by mainstream media
Senior Adv Mahesh Jethmalani says he is appearing for a Kochi based daily, Janmabhumi.

Jethmalani: We are not filing an affidavit because we are expansive on facts

@janmabhumidaily
Senior Adv Sanjay Hegde: please hear Zakat Foundation at the end

Justice Chandrachud: So your watching brief has now become an impleadment

Hegde: So you need to hear us as allegations are against us
Justice Chandrachud: We would like to hear what @SudarshanNewsTV has to say?

Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain: I will abide by and follow all laws and abide by the programming code.

Justice Chandrachud: Did we ask you to comment on NDTV show?
Justice Chandrachud: This is contrary to judicial practice. Just because we ask a question does not mean you will file affidavits. It enables to chisel our understanding. This will alter the consequence of the plea. No point in complaining what happened in 2008.
Justice Chandrachud: We had given your client as to what he proceeds to do what the rest of the show. You say you will adhere to program code. Did you ahdere to it with the first 4 episodes? Do you intend to continue in the same vein with the rest of the episodes?
Adv Jain: all my first 4 episodes of #UPSC_Jihad was in compliance with the program code

SC: So the rest in the same Genre?

Adv Jain: Yes on same lines. We will say that there is foreign funding to capture bureaucracy.
Adv Jain: I am requesting SC to give me an opportunity to view all 4 episodes and pausing every minute and then if you find that we violated that law, then we will abide by the decision
Justice Chandrachud: We gave that opportunity. We gave you a bonafide opportunity to assuage our concerns. You have answered yes and yes to my both questions. We got the point. Mr Divan has made his submissions.

Adv Jain: the interventions have distorted the facts of my case
Justice Chandrachud: If you check the line of civilized jurisprudence then no case of injunction has the counsel read all 700 pages of a contentious novel to the judge line by line to satisfy them. That has been the precedent and we don't want to deviate.
Adv Shadan Farasat for three Jamia Milia students: There is abdication of govt responsibility. The UoI without applying its mind said apply with program code. All 3 organs of the state need to ensure rights of a group of citizens is not violated. If that happens, will SC watch?
Farasat: We are 6.5 years after the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan judgment of 2014, and the expectation of SC was that provisions on hate speech should not be a dead letter. However they continue to be dead letter and the manner it is being excercised
Farasat: Union is yet to form rules post the common cause judgment. To support the order of September 15 some kind of content base analysis has to be done by SC to check if such a speech should be allowed at all.
Farasat: If the court watches the video, counsels don't have to persuade you on content. (ECHR verdict in Betty's case is being read out to the bench)
Farasat: Sudarshan TV says they will continue in the same way. What are these 4 episodes and the promo? It is evident that participation and success of Muslims is a terror conspiracy and that's the theme. There are some nuggets of facts are here and there.
Farasat: the primary argument is they are an entity who are about to take over a country and how a country must stand against it. @SureshChavhanke says he is not a traitor and will remain silent to it.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta interrupts the hearing and asks Justice Chandrachud'S colleague to wear a mask as he was very close to the judge.

#COVID19
Shadan Farasat continues: Mock interview has been put in between the show. Suresh Chavanke says Muslim candidates given favour as financial help and that they are 12 percent as per last census and will be 20 percent in 2020. So they know the numbers also.
Farasat: A chart is displayed with upper age limit 32 for Hindus and 35 for Muslims..OBC is nowhere there.

Justice Indu Malhotra: He says that in affidavit

Farasat: but that's not mentioned in his show or chart, nowhere.
Farasat: Urdu is not a Muslim language and its a schedule 22 language ! Famous users of the language are not Muslims. Then they say ban should be implemented on Urdu as Maitheli was done away with. However Maitheli is still a part of the schedule 22.
Farasat: episode 2 starts with ISIS, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. Says one should die if their soul is not awaken.

Justice Indu Malhotra: But this is in context of speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi , Abdul Rauf and Imran Pratapgarhi. Those are equally serious and you have to explain it
Justice Malhotra: From Senior Adv Divans submission we understood that terrorist organizations are funding the study. Nothing to do with the community, as Muslims are also our brother.

Farasat: Hate speech cannot operate on the basis of an hour of rambling.
Farasat: If Mr Divans submissions is the program then I will be out of the Court. What Akbaruddin Owaisi said was not problematic but his mannerisms were. It was all about getting a share of the power centee cake.

The show talks about Mughalistan and Davidistan
Farasat: The show says the Hindus have slept through a conspiracy of Muslims to snatch Hindustan.

Farsat takes the court though a talk between @SureshChavhanke and @madhukishwar
Farasat: Kishwar says "will we even live". My lords, just replace Muslims with jews and my lords can see the worldwide context.

Then the show talks about how Syed Zafar Mehmood of @zakatindia was put through dual loyalty test and asked what was bigger India or Islam?
Farasat: now we are on episode 3, where they said "UPSC se chunkar Rashtra bhakt hi aayega." Muslims were also called "Aasteen ka saanp."
A slide was shown saying this south block office should be yours for 35 years to Muslims aspirants. Here "yours" is Muslims says show
Justice Chandrachud: To what extent this show is an attack on @zakatindia or on Muslims. Our interference is also warranted if it has bearing on the community. If its just ZFI, then we cannot interfere. we need to focus on those ingredients which are hate speech against community
Farsat: They inexplicably interlinked. You gave them an option to go ahead with protected speech and do away with hate speech. No one is objecting to investigative journalism on ZFI. Hate speech do not operate in isolation. Can this continue this way?
Shadan Farasat: Episode 4 is something which shows bhaichara or brotherhood is something that needs to be stopped. Then @SureshChavhanke says Muslims are stabbing Dalits in the back and that is the recurrent theme
Farasat: Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act says reservation for SC ST will happen where there population large. This section is quoted in ZFI's website. But they construct a halo around this and justify stabbing in the back theme
Farasat: the show villifies a particular community. It strikes at the core of my civic dignity. In a multicultural society, there is responsibility on all pillars including the judiciary who has to ensure that individual respect needs to be guarded.
Farasat: Perversive environment of hate speech denies a community opportunities. The opportunities become hollow for me.

Hate speech per se is fit to be proscribed.
Farasat cites an example of continuous radio transmissions of hate speech led to the Rwandan genocide. Similarly non Jewish were convinced jews were a threat. Similarly Myanmar Buddhists were convinced that Rohingyas were a threat. All this leads to genocide.
Farasat: Similarly this program convices that this Muslims are your enemy. Hate speech over a period of times leads to such acts of violence. There is clear Article 14 and 21 constitution.. all four episodes have direct incitement.
Farasat: In an order of prior restraint judges do not know if protected speech gets excluded. That's why the reluctance. Reatraint on further broadcast that problem does not arise as they have an idea of how the program will go ahead.
Farasat: That's why @SureshChavhanke has refused amendments to the show as they know that the entire show is a hate speech and not only the nuggets.
Farasat; Balancing Article 14 with Article 21 has to be done in case which postponement orders are passed. In a case like this where risk never vanishes, a permanent injunction on narrow principles of law is something that the court should go by.
Shadan Farasat: Regarding violation of Article 14 and 21, the court under Article 226 and 32 is authorized to be the protector of fundamental rights.
@SudarshanNewsTV
Adv Shadan Farasat takes the bench through which speech falls into the realm of hate speech.

Farasat: Here the program as put a real or substantial risk with prejudcie to the Muslims.

#uoswantphysicalclasses
Farasat: Morality will not mean public morality but certainly include constitutional morality.

Justice KM Joseph: Please look at Sec 19 and 20 of Cable TV act
Court is reading this Section 👇
Justice Joseph: "may" is used but the requirement is public interest.
Court reads Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
Justice Joseph: is there any program today which is not offensive. Read the program code... In India we have a statutory mechanism where the government can interfere. If the govt does not excercise power under Section 19 and 20 then courts can.
Justice KM Joseph: Question to Solicitor-General: Did the government watch these episodes and see if they violated the law?
Farasat: If Section 5 is read then there is the word "person". The first part of the embargo is on any person. Cable TV usually re-transmits. This shows its applicable on broadcasters. All channels get uplinking and downlinking license.
Section 6 of the Programme code as being referred to 👇
Justice KM Joseph further points to Rule 10 under Cable TV act

Justice Chandrachud: Look at 6(M) it says: "Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups..."
SC: But now it is not for the courts to enforce the program code else we have to take all the cases that violates it
Justice Chandrachud: If Zakat Foundation feels there is defamation then they can approach civil remedies or a court to enforce damages etc. But here hate speech needs to be seen as targeting specific pockets of a community like LGBTQ etc.
Justice Chandrachud: There is indeed some public interest for editor of Sudarshan TV to say that certain foreign funding is happening for ZFI and it may be an extreme issue but he has right to his opinion if we issue a injunction then should it be a blanket injunction ...
Justice Chandrachud: ..which covers protected speech or should the court issue an injunction which allows broadcast but will not do by stereotype a community or indulge in conspiracy theory or paint one entire community with the same brush. ...
Farasat: Normally my preference would be limited injunction in interest of free speech. But here will limited injunction be useful?

Justice Chandrachud: We gave him ( @SudarshanNewsTV ) an opportunity. He didn't use that but it does not absolve us from our responsibility
Justice Chandrachud: Its not a trademark suit that we will say don't use a man with a beard or cap. Here what should the court do as part of the injunctive order. We can't order in specifics as it will denigrate the standard of a Constitutional Court. This is a judicial task
Farasat: There cannot be any targeting of a community.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta: Mr Farasat argued very well. I am elder to you, I can say.
Adv J Sai Deepak: You will also want to consider that there is a question of chilling effect of an order and what example does it state for future orders though it may be only for this series .. order of this Court will have a chilling effect.
@jsaideepak
Justice Chandrachud: we agree with you. we are concerned about balance between speech and dignity. Here the community is a large amorphous group and we can't ask them to approach civil remedy.
Justice Chandrachud: We will hear Senior Adv Anoop George Chaudhari next, then Mr Gautam Bhatia and then Ms Shahrukh Alam

Adv Chaudhari: I need more than 10 minutes

Justice Chandrachud: Saari behes toh ho gayi aapki (all your arguments are over) (smiles)
Justice Chandrachud: We will hear Mr Sai Deepak and followed by Mr Rohatgi and Mr Jethmalani.

Justice Chandrachud to @gautambhatia88 : Please look at the questions we were posing to Mr Farasat

Hearing to resume on Sept 23, 2 Pm
Supreme Court hears plea against broadcast of Sudarshan TV's "UPSC Jihad" show - LIVE UPDATES [Day 5]

#Sudarshantv #SudarshanNews #UPSC_Jihad @SureshChavhanke @SudarshanTVnews #SupremeCourt
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
If we issue an injunction then should it be a blanket injunction? Supreme Court asks in Sudarshan TV matter

#Sudarshantv #SudarshanNews #UPSC_Jihad @SureshChavhanke @SudarshanTVnews @OpIndia_com #SupremeCourt
barandbench.com/news/if-we-iss…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

Jul 25
Supreme Court to shortly hear the case pertaining to release of #UdaipurFiles movie

#SupremeCourt Image
The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the movie Udaipur Files is about a particular crime and not against any particular community

barandbench.com/news/udaipur-f…
Justice Kant: Have you filed any Petition in HC? How did Mr Sibal say that it was filed. First go to HC and pursue and then come here. Now other side says he is satisfied with central govt order and he does not want to pursue the case here. So you go to HC now. Why waste our time.

Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: This can be transferred to the HC. I can go to the HC but matter was pending here.

Sr Adv Gaurav Bhatia: we are withdrawing it.

Sibal: that is fine ..we will challenge the Central govt order in HC
Read 12 tweets
Jul 22
A Battle for Alimony in the #SupremeCourt

Chief Justice B.R:
What is your demand (for alimony)?

Lady: Just the house in Mumbai, free of all costs. And ₹12 crore as maintenance.

CJI Gavai: But that house is in Kalpataru… one of the good builders. You’re an IT person. You’ve done your MBA. You’re in demand ..Bengaluru, Hyderabad... Why don’t you work also?”

“You had a marriage for just 18 months,” the CJI continues, “and now you also want a BMW?” 18 months marriage and you want one crore for each month!

Lady: But he is very rich. And he sought the nullity of the marriage claiming I’m schizophrenic.

Sr Adv Madhavi Divan for the Husband: She has to work also. Everything cannot be demanded like this.

Lady: Do I look Schizophrenic My Lords

CJI Gavai: File income tax returns. But understand you cannot claim the properties of his father also.

Case again at 2 pm.Image
Bench reassembled

CJI Gavai: Where are the returns?

Lady: Yes it is here

Sr Adv Divan: Please give the entire copy .. see 2015-16 there is high income because he was employed then Image
CJI: Income in 2015-16

Divan: 2 crore 50 lakhs and 1 crore bonus itself..there are also allegations of proxy businesses. Let's take that also for example.. those balance sheets also there. There is nothing to talk about.. if he can just keep the job
Read 7 tweets
Jul 17
Plea in #SupremeCourt seeks FIR against sitting Delhi HC judges

Adv: This plea seeks registration of FIR against sitting HC judges. The issue is when I am the topper of the exam, but all judges.. ideally case should be heard by court 1..

Justice Surya Kant: Are you wanting to argue or you want to do bench hunting? We understand this kind of publicity stunts. Which college you did graduate and MBA?

Adv: engineering from DU and MBA From IIM Kozhikode

Justice Kant: still you make such scandalous allegationsImage
Adv: If this can be treated it as a civil petition.. then this court can..

Justice Kant: just because there are illegal, perverse petitions being filed . You cannot ask FIRs against judges. How many cases have you done

Adv: I did law for this case only

Justice Kant: that's what I thought. Tell me under which law judges are liable to be prosecuted for giving judgments against you.
Justice Kant: What happened to your contempt plea? Why unconditional apology to the tribunal then?

Adv: the court officer told me that earlier order passed was destroyed. the case was earlier only adjourned..

Justice Kant: why unconditional apology

Adv: Justice Vipin Sanghi told me to apologise to tribunal when I moved high court
Read 7 tweets
Jul 17
"We are constantly monitored by social media" - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is making arguments opposing X Corp's plea in Karnataka HC challenging Central govt. 'Sahyog' portal to issue content blocking orders.

Matter before Justice Nagaprasanna. Track Thread for updates Image
SG Mehta: We are constantly being monitored by social media sites, we are products for them ... There is a kind of profiling for every individual.
Judge: Whatever you desire...

SG Mehta: .. You are bombarded with it (on the phone). Even speaking is now (monitored)

Judge: Yes, whatever you are speaking to someone, you get all the related content on phone.
Read 76 tweets
Jul 16
Supreme Court to shortly hear the plea where it had granted interim bail to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Professor of Ashoka University, in connection with his Facebook post on Operation Sindoor #SupremeCourt #OperationSindoor Image
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: A status report has been filed. Please see what was said earlier.. that probe shall be confined to the two FIRs only.
Sr Adv Sibal: please see page 2. Para 8 of the status report. it shows data extraction report of devices and SIT examining it. Then it says investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the law. Then it says reports from FSL received..now they want to know where you travelled for the last 10 years.
Read 14 tweets
Jul 10
Supreme Court to shortly hear a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s June 24, 2025 order for a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar months before the state goes to assembly polls #BiharElections2025 #SupremeCourtofIndia @ECISVEEP Image
Some of the petitions are by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, former AAP co-founder Yogendra Yadav, Manoj RJD MP Manoj Jha, Association for Democratic Reforms among others @MahuaMoitra @_YogendraYadav @RJDforIndia @pbhushan1
@MahuaMoitra @_YogendraYadav @RJDforIndia @pbhushan1 A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi to hear the matter today #BiharElections2025 #SupremeCourtofIndia
Read 54 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(