[LIVE UPDATES] SC Hearing On Plea Against Sudarshan TV's 'UPSC Jihad' Show

Sr. Adv. Anoop G. Chaudhari seeks for permission to file an Affidavit.

Justice Chandrachud: Since when have you needed permission to file one ? Just ensure that it’s not longer than Divan’s affidavit.

Justice Chandrachud to Adv. Gautam Bhatia: Before we conclude, what will you submit before the Court ?

Bhatia: I will focus on two issues. The nature of hate speech and the aspect of prior restraint. 

Justice Chandrachud to SG Mehta: We are not referring to you as a government lawyer, but as assistance to the Court. Answer us on the aspect as to what can be done to strengthen the self-regulatory arm.

Sr. Adv. Preetesh Kapur, appearing on behalf of Press Council of India, seeks to make submissions and raises questions that must be answered during the course of the matter.

Justice Chandrachud: One thing you can do is come back to us on a method to strengthen NBA, so that you have a higher regulatory content. You have a few members and your regulations cannot be implemented. You need to tell us how it can be strengthened.

Justice Chandrachud: Do you watch TV ?

Bhambhani: Yes.

Justice Chandrachud: Can you control it ?

Bhambhani: No, but we have improved significantly. It’s just that not all channels are our members.

Adv. Nisha Bhambani appearing on behalf of NBA submits that it is not a toothless organisation as they make the channels apologise during Prime Time to all their paid viewers. 

Justice Chandrachud: We have given him an opportunity to Sudarshan News to file an affidavit saying what they propose to do.

Adv Sharukh Alam: Mr. Divan has tried to create a lower threshold of 'rebuttable information' , as opposed to 'direct incitement to violence' with respect to describing the contents of the program. While the transcript of the program does not correspond to Mr. Divan's description of the program at all, even this category of 'rebuttable information' requires examination. Is deliberate disinformation protected speech? The virality of fake news far exceeds that of verified facts.

Farasat concludes his arguments by submitting that it is the duty of the Constitutional court to restrain projection of hate speech. 

Farasat: Please watch all the Episodes. These are not subjective perception of an issue. These are objectively hate speech. I urge you to watch it. Mr. Divan should watch it too and not just go by his briefings.