Delhi High Court
Syed Mujtaba Athar & Anr. vs Union Of India, Through The ... on 11 September, 2020
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 11.09.2020
+ W.P.(C) 6336/2020
SYED MUJTABA ATHAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Shadan Farasat, Mr.Bharat
Gupta & Mr.Shourya Dasgupta,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING &
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC
for R-1.
Mr.Bijender Singh &
Ms.Vriddhi Arora, Advs. for R-
2 & R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
This petition has been heard through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 22492/2020, 22493/2020 & 22494/2020 (Exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 & CM APPL. 22491/2020
1. Issue notice.
2. Notice is accepted by Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC on behalf
of the respondent no. 1 and Mr.Bijender Singh, Advocate on behalf of
the respondent nos. 2 and 3. They pray for and are granted four weeks
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 1
to file counter affidavits. Rejoinder(s), if any, be filed within a period
of three weeks thereafter.
3. The petition challenges the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by
the respondent no. 1 on the complaint against violation of the
Programme Code under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 by
the respondent no. 2. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the order dated 09.09.2020
are relevant and are quoted herein-below:-
"8. This is a peculiar situation where while the
programme has not yet been telecast, the promo of the
programme has been telecast on the channel, which
formed the basis of the complaints received in the
Ministry; accordingly the Ministry issued the notice to
the channel to give its say regarding adherence by the
channel to the Programme Code in respect of the
proposed programme.
9. The channel has mentioned in the written
submission that the proposed programme "BINDASS
BOL" is not violative of the law and further that if at
all the programme is found to be violative, action as
per law may be taken.
10. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and
circumstances of the case, Sudarshan TV channel is
hereby directed to ensure that the programme proposed
to be telecast does not violate any of the programme
codes. If any violation of the programme code is found,
action as per law will be taken."
4. The present case has a history inasmuch as the petitioners had
earlier, based on a promo of the programme "BINDASS BOL", filed a
petition before this Court being W.P.(C) 5792/2020 titled Syed
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 2
Mujtaba Athar & Ors. v. The Union of India Through The
Secretary, Minisitry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.,
seeking restraint on the telecast of the said programme. This Court by
its order dated 29.08.2020, had disposed of the said petition, directing
as under:-
"13. The present application and the petition are
therefore, disposed of directing as under:
a) The respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall file their reply to
the Notice with the Central Government. The learned
counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that the
reply will be filed by 01.09.2020;
b) The Central Government shall decide on its Notice
within 48 hours of the receipt of the reply from the
respondent nos.3 and 4, after giving them an
opportunity of hearing in this regard;
c) The Central Government shall decide on the Notice
remaining uninfluenced by any observations made by
this Court in the present order.
d) Either party shall be entitled to challenge the order
passed by the Central Government, if aggrieved
thereby, in accordance with law.
e) Till such decision by the Central Government, the
respondent nos.3 and 4 shall not telecast/transmit the
programme 'Bindas Bol' that was scheduled to be
transmitted/telecasted on 28.08.2020 at 8.00 p.m.;"
5. The Impugned Order has been passed in purported compliance
with the said direction.
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 3
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent no. 1 has passed the said order without calling upon the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to satisfy the respondent no. 1 on the contents
of the programme and based the order only on the assertions of the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the said programme does not violate the
Programme Code. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and Others,
(2014) 11 SCC 477, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the respondent no. 1 has to ensure that no „hate speech‟ is
telecasted and the law in this regard is strictly enforced. Further,
placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahara
India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603, he
submits that even prior restraint through pre-censorship in this regard
is permissible. He also places reliance on the provisions of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to submit that the power
to prohibit the telecast and re-telecast of a programme has been vested
with the respondent no. 1 and therefore, would include pre-censorship
or prior restraint on the telecast of a programme.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. A reading of the Impugned Order would indicate
that the same is premised primarily on the assurance and undertaking
given by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the proposed programme is
not violating the law and especially the Programme Code. The
Impugned Order directs the respondent no. 2 to ensure that the
proposed programme does not violate any provision of the Programme
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 4
Code and further warns the respondent no. 2 that if any such violation
is found, action as per law will be taken.
8. At this stage, this Court has no material to determine whether
the programme of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would, in any manner
violate the Programme Code. Infact, the telecast of the same
programme has been challenged by a certain party before the Supreme
Court in W.P. (C) 956/2020 titled Firoz Iqbal Khan vs. Union of
India & Ors. The Supreme Court by its order dated 28.08.2020, while
issuing notice on the said petition, has observed as under:-
"5 During the course of the hearing, it has been
highlighted that the expression of views
derogatory to a particular community has a
divisive potential. Prima facie, the petition raises
significant issues bearing on the protection of
constitutional rights. Consistent with the
fundamental right to free speech and expression,
the Court will need to foster a considered a
debate on the setting up of standards of self-
regulation. Together with free speech, there are
other constitutional values which need to be
balanced and preserved including the
fundamental right to equality and fair treatment
for every segment of citizens.
6 Having regard to the importance of the issues
which arise from the petition under Article 32,
we direct that notice be issued to the
respondents, returnable on 15 September 2020.
On the next date of listing, the court will
consider appointing amicus curiae to assist it
towards a resolution which advances the
protection of constitutional rights.
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 5
xxxxxxxx
8 At this stage, we have desisted from imposing a
pre-broadcast interlocutory injunction on the
basis of an unverified transcript of a forty nine
second clip. The Court has to be circumspect in
imposing a prior restraint on publication or the
airing of views. We note that under statutory
provisions, competent authorities are vested with
powers to ensure compliance with law, including
provisions of the criminal law intended to ensure
social harmony and the peaceful coexistence of
all communities."
9. The Supreme Court has observed that the Court has to be
circumspect in imposing pre broadcast injunction on publication or
airing of views.
10. In view of the order of the Supreme Court having been passed
in relation to the programme in question itself, at this stage, I do not
deem it proper to restrain the telecast of the programme.
11. List on 18th November, 2020.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020/rv
W.P.(C) 6336/2020 Page 6
