OP India, Indic Collective Moves SC Seeking Intervention In Sudarshan TV Matter, Raises Questions On SC's Jurisdiction

The Petitioners, through Advocate Suvidutt MS, have submitted that the present case arises from just one-off instance whereas there are approximately 100 instances of patently false reportage by mainstream media organizations in just one Report prepared by OpIndia.

It is highlighted that in each of such 100 instances, Indic faiths and Indic communities have been the subject of "blanket stereotyping, generalization and demonization".

The Petitioners have therefore asked the Court if it would be fair and reasonable to lay down the law on "hate speech" based on only a particular instance, without considering the contemporary landscape on exercise of free speech.

If so, the Petitioners have submitted,

"Applying the standards which appear to emanate from the ad interim Order passed in the Writ Petition restraining the telecast of the impugned content, it is clear that each of the 100 instances enumerated in the Report ought to have been or must be actioned against on similar lines at the very least.

Conversely, it would be fair to presume that the impugned content is merely consistent with the standards set by mass media over the decades on religious reporting."

The Petitioners have further pointed out that in seeking to regulate content, regard must be had to the nature of the medium and the specific legislation that applies to such content.

"Any exercise of jurisdiction even by Constitutional Courts pursuant to their plenary powers under Articles 226 and 32 must necessarily conform to the black letter of such legislations, and cannot be in derogation of them. Importantly, the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts is limited to examining the validity of State action within the four corners of such legislations, but cannot extend to prescribing fetters on such content," they submitted.

Reliance is placed on Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election Commission of India, AIR 2014 SC 2537, whereby the Top Court had held that directions can be issued the Court only when there has been a "total vacuum in law", i.e. complete absence of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of a basic human right.

In the present case however, it is pointed out, legislations such as the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 already ccupy the field, with necessary Rules in place.

Lastly it is pointed out that the Court may step in in exercise of its constitutional obligations to enforce the law only in case there is inaction on the part of the Executive, for whatsoever reason.

In the instant case it is pointed out that no authority has initiated any legal proceeding against the channel as the show fits the contemporary standard of religious reporting.

Further it is submitted,

"In order for the Court to conclude that the Executive is guilty of inaction, it must account for lapsation of a reasonable period of time before the inference of inaction on the part of the State can be drawn. If this safeguard is not observed, it would result in clear and serious transgression of the doctrine of separation of powers."