Thread by @SauravDassss

#MyPiece🚨

It is rather rich of the Supreme Court to preach morality when, not too long ago, not a single Supreme Court judge publicly objected to their Chief Justice presiding over cases despite serious allegations of sexual harassment. 1/10

thewire.in/law/supreme-co…

The condition imposed on @BeerBicepsGuy and "his associates" to not air "any shows " for the time being until further orders is a sweeping condition.

One would expect the highest court to explain why it deemed it necessary to bar someone from their profession and gag their future speech-both fundamental rights. 2/10

Yet, the Supreme Court imposed this condition arbitrarily – paternalistic, sweeping, and entirely unaccountable – emblematic of its mai-baap approach, wherein it sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all things, unburdened by the need to justify its own excesses. 3/10

This is more striking because in 2022 @zoo_bear's bail case, Justice Kant, who was sitting with Justices DYC and AS Bopanna, had endorsed the DYC-authored judgment that rejected UP govt's demand to restrict Zubair from tweeting as a bail condition, calling such a gag order disproportionate and having a chilling effect. 4/10

But now, as a lead judge of a smaller bench, Justice Kant has taken a completely contradictory position. If a judge radically departs from a legal reasoning they previously endorsed, judicial discipline demands an explanation in the order.

The lack of one here reinforces concerns about what I call “vibe jurisprudence.” 5/10

The only rationale behind this sweeping restriction is the biases of the bench, reflected in the remarks made before the order was dictated.

When pointed to the law, Justice Kant quickly shifted the discussion to “societal values” and proceeded to establish the court's moral superiority over the petitioner. 6/10

Justice Kant queried about the “parameters” of “self-evolved societal values” within which a “responsible citizen” should behave. The decision to bar @BeerBicepsGuy and "his associates" from airing any show was grounded in this entirely subjective standard of morality. This is judicial punishment rooted not in law but in personal sentiment. 7/10

The Supreme Court’s moralising and overreach aside, more concerning is Justice Surya Kant’s explicit desire to “do something” about OTT regulation. This is deeply concerning.

The Supreme Court lacks the capacity, technical expertise, and institutional bandwidth to craft regulations for digital content. Over five crore cases are pending before Indian courts. The country cannot afford its future Chief Justice embarking on a whimsical crusade to regulate OTT platforms while urgent judicial concerns remain unaddressed. 8/10

Is there more at play?

The court’s intervention could revive the shelved Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024. This proposed law was criticised for its sweeping scope. If the Court’s intervention nudges the government towards reviving the Bill, it will have effectively provided legal cover for broader censorship. 9/10

It is not the Supreme Court’s job to police morality or craft content regulations. The court must back off and resist the temptation to play guardian of societal values. Instead, it should focus on improving justice delivery and hearing challenges to laws that are inconsistent with constitutional principles – such as the Delhi Services Act, 2023. 10/10

For @thewire_in.

Do support independent journalism!

{End}
thewire.in/law/supreme-co…