The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre on Friday, seeking its answer to a petition seeking an injunction to prevent the Central Government from editing a BBC documentary about the 2002 Gujarat riots. A panel of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh directed the Central government to file its answer within three weeks and scheduled a hearing for April.
The bench refused to issue an interim order on the plea, stating that it could not do so without first hearing the government, and directed it to present all records on the next hearing date.
“We direct respondents to produce original records on the next date of hearing,” the bench ordered.
Prominent counsel CU Singh, representing Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra, senior journalist N Ram, and advocate Prashant Bhushan, told the bench that the IT Rules require the emergency blocking orders to be published within 48 hours.
According to Singh, the Centre blocked the documentary based on the secret order, and universities are taking action against students for displaying the video based on the secret order. “It is also a fact that people have been accessing those videos.” Justice Khanna stated. Singh requested a shorter deadline for the lawsuit, but the bench denied his request.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre in response to a petition filed by attorney ML Sharma challenging the Central Government’s decision to stop the documentary. The PIL filed by attorney Sharma also requested that the Supreme Court convene and examine the BBC documentary – both parts I and II – and sought action against those who were accountable for and involved directly or indirectly in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The case filed by N Ram and others sought direction to dismiss any decisions which directly and indirectly limit the online access to BBC’s documentary “India: The Modi Question”. The decision to stop the documentary was described as “manifestly arbitrary” and “unconstitutional” in their petition.
The petitioners also sought the restoration of their tweets including links to the documentary, which were removed by Twitter in response to the Centre’s demands. The PIL filed by attorney Sharma also requested that the Supreme Court convene and examine the BBC documentary – both parts I and II – and sought action against those who were accountable for and involved directly or indirectly in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The case filed by N Ram and others sought direction to dismiss any decisions which directly and indirectly limit the online access to BBC’s documentary “India: The Modi Question”.
The decision to stop the documentary was described as “manifestly arbitrary” and “unconstitutional” in their petition. The petitioners also sought the restoration of their tweets including links to the documentary, which were removed by Twitter in response to the Centre’s demands.
The right to free speech and expression granted to citizens by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the “right to receive and disseminate information” according to the petition. Even if the contents of the documentary and its viewership/discussion are unpleasant to the powers that be, the petitioners’ freedom of speech and expression must be protected, according to the request.
According to insiders, the Centre issued instructions on January 21 to remove various YouTube videos and Twitter messages that shared links to the contentious BBC programme. Vishnu Gupta, President of the Hindu Sena, has also filed a PIL in the Supreme Court demanding a blanket ban on the BBC programme.
The PIL also asked the National Investigating Agency to launch an investigation into anti-India and anti-Indian-government reporting/documentary films/short films, as well as its employee journalists in India, and to submit an inquiry report to the Supreme Court.
