'Art 29 Does Not Give Right To Claim TV Langauge Channel' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Doordarshan Channel In Sindhi

The Supreme Court on Monday(October 14) dismissed a petition seeking to direct the Union Government and the Prasar Bharati to run a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan TV channel to preserve the language and cultural heritage of the Sindhi community, a linguistic minority in India.

The Court dismissed the petition filed by Sindhi Sangat observing that no citizen can make a claim based on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution that the government should start a separate channel in their language.

"The right which is claimed under Article 29 for preserving the language of the Sindhi population cannot result in an absolute or indefeasible right for the commencement of a separate language channel for a particular language," observed the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its order dismissing the petition.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court, both the single bench and the division bench, dismissed the plea saying that a mandamus cannot be issued for the start of a separate language channel. Observing that the reasons given by the High Court are "unexceptionable", the Supreme Court too declined interference.

Courtroom exchange

As soon as the matter was taken, CJI Chandrachud expressed reluctance to entertain the plea, saying that it was a policy matter. The CJI also highlighted the statement made by Doordarshan before the High Court that it was running Sindhi programs in three DD channels - DD Girnar, DD Sahyadri and DD Rajasthan, which are aired in areas where Sindhi population are predominantly located. The CJI also referred to the respondents's stand that a separate channel catering to a small population of about 26 lakhs was not sustainable, given the annual running cost of approximately Rs 20 crores.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, for the petitioner, submitted that she was challenging the criteria followed by the respondents for starting DD language channels, which was linked to territoriality. She submitted that the DD follows the policy of broadcasting programs in the principal language of the region where the station was located. She argued that these criteria did not meet the test of reasonableness as per the 'Wednesbury principles', given that the Sindhi population do not have a state of their own. Since the Sindhis are a refugee community scattered all over the country, the adoption of a straightjacket policy regarding the Sindhi language was unreasonable, she argued.

However, the CJI pointed out that before the High Court, the petitioner had not challenged the DD's policy and the prayer was only to start a separate channel. In response, Jaising argued that the Courts have the power to mould the relief.

"This is the solitary example of a language which does not have a state. Perhaps, the same with the Parsi language. There is a language in India which has no state has no state to call its own. Had there been a state called, Sindh, there would have been a channel. Do not link your policy with the territoriality of the issue because you are dealing with a language which does not have a territory. You cannot have the same policy," Jaising submitted saying that the DD's criteria were irrelevant and arbitrary. She highlighted that Sindhi is recognized as an official language of India as per the Eighth Schedule.

The CJI pointed out that these issues were not raised before the High Court and there was no data before it. Jaising reiterated that the Courts can mould the relief and added that she was not disputing the official data produced by the respondents regarding the Sindhi population and the running cost of the channel. Rs 20 crores for preserving a language was not much of a cost for the State which is Constitutionally bound to protect the linguistic heritage, she added.

CJI said that starting a separate DD channel may not be the only means to preserve a language.

"Can a citizen say that there must be a mandate to start a separate channel to preserve my language under Article 29? There are other means of preserving a language. Create more awareness," CJI said.

Jaising replied that public broadcasting is the most effective means of preserving a language.

"Not necessarily. That depends on the profile of the community. If it is a community which is predominantly rural, public broadcasting would be an important means. But if the communities are urban, for instance, the Sindhis, I understand, are basically in the urban and semi-urban areas. Therefore public broadcasting is not the only means. Sandhis are predominantly a business community," CJI said.

When Jaising said that the matter raised an issue of the interpretation of Article 29, CJI replied that Article 29 does not give anyone the right to demand a separate channel.

"Suppose there is a language which is facing extinction. No citizen can say that in pursuit of my fundamental rights, you must set up a separate TV channel. There are other ways," CJI said.

During the hearing, CJI incidentally mentioned Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani was also from the Sindhi community. Jaising added that she also belonged to the Sindhi community and hailed from the same village as Jethmalani. She credited Jethmalani for taking the efforts to include the Sindhi language in the eighth schedule.

While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that it had only dealt with the prayers raised in the petition and that the dismissal of the petition would only conclude that aspect of the matter.

The petition was filed through AoR Paras Nath Singh. Advocate Rohin Bhatt assisted Jaising.

Case : SINDHI SANGAT Vs UNION OF INDIA D No. 43504/2024