Firoz Iqbal khan vs Union of India
[ UPSC Jihad Case ]
Court: Supreme court of India
Case no: W.P. [ C ] No.956/2020
Date of decision: 15th September 2020
Petitioner: Firoz Iqbal khan
Respondent: Union of India
JUDGES
1) Justice DY Chandrachud
2) Justice Indu Malhotra
3) Justice KM Joseph
Abstract
This case comment sheds light on India’s lengthy history of communal discernment, which dates back to before independence and subsequently led to the country’s split. With British Imperialism and their “Divide and Rule” policy, Communalism gained traction. The problem of communalism has hampered the country’s development over the years. The federal and state governments, as well as other relevant agencies, have worked together to address the issue and foster social peace. The struggle for India’s independence was centred on the values of freedom of expression and speech. Which was eventually established in the Indian Constitution as a basic right, but with some limitations.
This case establishes the critical position of establishing a balance between hate speech in the name of communal remarks and freedom of speech and expression.
Facts of the case:
On 28th August 2020, the writ petition under article 32 of the constitution was moved for urgent direction since the telecast of a programme titled “BindasBol” was to require place at 8 PM on sudarshan news; in August 2020 a petition was filed on the basis of a forty nine second promotional film, which contain controversial content which mentions the entry of Muslim in the All India Services after clearing the UPSC Exams, however, the Supreme Court declined issue a pre- broadcast interlocutory injunction.
On an equivalent day, one judge of the Delhi supreme court restrained Suresh Chavhanke from broadcasting the proposed programme and directed the ministry of data and broadcasting to consider whether there was a violation of the programme code under the provisions o the cable television networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Since then on 11, 12, 13 and 14 September 2020 four episodes have been telecasted after the concerned ministry and it has been ensured that there are no violation of the programme code with a cavet that the programme should abide by the law. Despite the ongoing issues, the channel has broad cast those defamatory episodes.
In those episodes, Suresh Chavhanke, the chief editor of Sudarshan TV, also because the anchor claimed that the Muslim community is infiltrating the civil services by cracking the UPSC exams. It also questioned the funds received by several Muslim foundation specifically, the Zakat foundationconnecting with Terror linked organizations. The remaining episodes are planned to broadcast from 15th to 20th September. After several intervention applications were filed, this case again up before the Supreme Court on 15th September 2020.
Issue
• Whether or not the aforementioned show promotes hate speech against a specific faith
• Whether the remaining episodes of the show should be subject to a pre-broadcast injunction.
• Reasonable limitations on the Constitutional Right of Free Speech and Expression.
• Whether Journalistic freedom is Absolute or Not.
Arguments made by the petitioner
The substance of the aired episodes is hate speech addressed at the Muslim community, which vilifies the community by portraying it as participating in terrorism or, as it is dubbed, “Jihad” infiltrating the nation’s civil services.
It has been claimed that the channel made a false assertion, claiming that the maximum age limit for Hindu candidates is 32 years, while the maximum age limit for Muslim candidates is 35 years. Muslims have an additional nine attempts, whereas Hindus have only six.
The broadcast has been labelled as hate speech. On their Twitter handle, promotional videos based on Sudarshan news programmes have been posted in the public domain, to which a large number of people have responded with reactions bordering on hatred towards the Muslim population.
Arguments made by the Respondent
• There is no change in the position as it existed when this court declined to grant a pre-existed when this court declined to grant a pre-broadcast injunction on 28th August 2020.
• Chavhanke has embarked on an investigative exercise, this being a part of the fundamental duty of a journalist to convey information to the public.
• The programmes raise issues about national security.
• The contents of the pogrammes indicate the involvement of foreign funding.
Judgement
Initially, the court declined to issue a pre-broadcast injunction in its previous order dated August 28, 2020, but with a change in circumstances prima facie and on the basis of record emerged before the court because episodes of “BindasBol” had been aired between September 11th to 14th, 2020, indicating the content, tenor, and object of the telecast in question. As a result, the next episodes will undoubtedly continue in the same manner. Based on what had been broadcast, the court determined that it was necessary to restrained the respondent from broadcasting any more episodes in continuation of or similar to those shows which were aired between September 11th to 14th ,2020.
Before issuing the order, court observed the following points:-
• The prime intent of the said programme is to disparage and vilify the Muslim community and a insidious attempt had been made to insinuate that the Muslim community was involved in a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services by questioning the increased percentage of people belongs to the Muslim community in civil services and calling it “Infiltration”.
• The name of fact-based investigation the channel could not target or accuse any particular community. Being the largest democratic society, all the existing religious in India should be cohesive with each other if not, the nation cannot survive. Any plan to vilify a spiritual community must be viewed with grave disfavor because the custodian of constitutional values.
• The constitutional right to free speech and expressionis not to be used as a vehicle for the promotion of hate speech. It’s a constitutional duty to accord equal weight to both the right to free speech & expression and the dignity of minorities, are both constitutionally protected.
• On adressing the petitioner’s statement regarding fake claims made by the channel, the court said that there is no relaxation either in the number of attempts permissible or maximum age limit specifically for the Muslim community in civil services.
• Journalistic freedom is not absolute in India. A journalist Share the freedom as any other citizen. There is no individual freedom for journalist like in the united nation of America. Therefore there’s a requirement for those journalists who are fair in their debates.
• The importance of having some regulating standards for TV news channels, the entertainment value of watching TV is more which newspapers do not have, and therefore there is a need to have some standards.
Conclusion
The freedom to free speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution must not be exploited to promote hate speech in the community. Reasonable Restrictions is found in Article 19(2) of the constitution. It is critical to recognise that a free and open media is the bedrock of a strong democracy, and that the quality of a country’s media, in reality, reflects how democratic that state is. In India, journalism or news media is not as absolute as it is in the United States of America. Journalists in India have no individual freedom; they have the same rights as any other Indian citizen. The media is expected to serve as a link between the government and the general public. The media should perform its fundamental duty of journalism as a good portrayer of the present state of affairs.
0 Comments