'If A Channel Raising An Objection Of Muslims Taking Benefit Of OBC Quota, It Can't Be Communal': Shyam Divan Argues For Sudarshan TV

Divanisputing the stay order passed by a Bench led by Justice Chandrachud, the channel has stated that the show is made out of "investigative journalism" which reveals "illegal foreign funding" tied to terrorist linked organizations of UPSC coaching centres that cater to the minority community.

Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan appearing for the channel argued that Editor-in-Chief believes that the show is based on solid facts unearthed by investigative journalism and it is the duty of the media to bring the truth to its audience. He assured that the channel is conscious of how the programme is a live stream and as far as the story is concerned, it is not against a particular community and just wants to present facts.

"The facts have been investigated, they have been collated. I believe under my fundamental right to speech and expression, I am entitled to project these to the TV media," he submitted on behalf of the channel.

He highlighted how the Zakat Foundation is attempting to fund students applying for the Civil Services and that there is no knowledge of the source of funding. He said that the thrust of the programme is that there is a "conspiracy" and nowhere does it say that members of a certain community should not join Civil Services.

"Funds from a tainted organisation are being obtained to infiltrate the bureaucracy. Our channel endeavoured to expose anti-national activities and the manner in which some persons are being recruited in All India Civil Service under a design to induct persons with the financial support of international fundamentalists to achieve their oblique motives." he said.

He went on to list the groups (allegedly pro-Pak groups) which formed the source of exorbitant funding for the Foundation and also listed the amount which has allegedly been donated.

He stressed on the fact that the founder of Zakat Foundation, Syed Zafar Mahmood, had been approached to place his side of the story. This, he said, exhibits Chavhanke's attempt to bring forth both the sides of the story.

On the issue of communalization, Divan said

"A minority community is taking benefit of OBC and minority scheme simultaneously and the same is a political and social issue which is why we are seeking a debate.

If a news channel is raising an objection of Muslims taking benefit of OBC quota the same cannot be communal and in this country time and again these questions and this debates are in public domain."

Talking about pre-publication censorship he submitted that there is nothing in the law which allows for prior restraint.

"Suppose there was a pre-publication ban before the episode, my answer is that the public may have lost out on a large piece of information that he made an effort to collate.

As far as my freedom of speech and prior restraint is concerned, that is not employed in context of TV broadcast. With respect to reasonable restrictions, there is nothing in our law which allows for prior restraint till date… Even with regard to Pre-censorship with respect to cinematography, I was told that there is a petition still pending and is under challenge," he said.

Referring to non-regulation of OTT platforms, Divan said,

"In this internet age when there is no restriction on Netflix etc, then this ban would just be anachronistic. That is essentially the submission having regard to Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 14."

He submitted that the channel has been operating for 15 years and has always submitted to the law. He thus said,

"When a journalist has investigated and found material regarding foreign funding. I think in our country, that person has the right to criticise this and present his version of the events. He may be right or may be wrong… The public or the informed citizen can take a call and make a decision for themselves as to whether they want to believe it or not… it is not necessary for everyone to like what is being projected by a news channel. The fact that some news may make some people uncomfortable is the cornerstone of a democracy."

He assured that the channel is here and is ready to face the consequences, if any, after the broadcast.

"The exercise of free speech may be permitted untrammelled by an injunction of a constitutional court. Of course fallibility is a part of human nature and there might be certain figures which might not right. But, overall, this is someone who has crunched the numbers and researched thoroughly to present his point of view.

There is a post broadcast machinery that is robust enough. If someone feels that there is an element of defamation or untruth and they may approach the Court. We have sufficient checks and balances."

Referring to the case of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan wherein the telecast of "Father, Son and Holy War" was in contestation, Divan submitted:

"every man has the right to place before the public his point of view and to destroy this is to destroy the freedom of the press."

He added,

"We, as a citizen in a democracy, have a right to be informed. On that basis, the programme should be allowed to air till the last episode. There will be no breach of the Programme Code. And if there is, that can be rectified."