LEGAL METHODS

1st Trimester

Should Sudershan TV Channel be allowed to air the

UPSC Jihad programme?

Submitted By:
Mahipal Singh

Student ID: LLB/2783/2021

National Law School of India University

INTRODUCTION

Rule of law is the integral part of a democratic society where constitutional rights, duties, and
values are based on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting point of civilizations,
culture, religions, and languages where any attempt to vilify a religious community must be
viewed with grave disfavor.1 One of the events to vilify the religious community happen when
the Sudershan TV Channel broadcast a programme named ‘Bindass Bol- UPSC Jihad’ which
shows that the Muslim community is involved in the conspiracy to infiltrate UPSC.2

This paper shall argue that the UPSC Jihad program of Sudershan TV should not be allowed to
air as its prime facie intention is to vilify Muslims with a false ground base. 3 To this end, the
paper will first, discuss Stuart Mill’s theoretical framework on the liberty of Thought and
Discussion; second, it will put the key argument in favor of my thesis; and third, it will identify
objections to my thesis and confute them with a counterargument.

LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION

Through the study of the second chapter of Stuart Mill, one can be confusing that Mill was an
absolutist who believe that speech must not be restraint as it is a source of truth and cannot harm
as do stick and stone.4 He believes that even if one is contrasting with the opinion of the
majority, he should not be suppressed. According to him suppressing the liberty of thought and
discussion would harm the whole society, as it will not be able to find the truth. Mill was of the
opinion that if people hold true opinions then he will be benefited from the dissenter's view about
that opinion.5 Dissenting opinions are socially useful for people to know the strength of their
opinion but dissenting opinion cannot be substituted for false opinion. However, Mill recognizes
that liberty of expression can sometimes also be harmful when speech is incendiary and can
incite violence then society is justified in censoring the liberty of speech. 6 But it does not mean
that prior restraints against such type of speech are allowed. Such as the programme of
Sudershan TV ‘Bindass Bol- UPSC Jihad’ there was trying to vilify the Muslim community
particular without any strong ground but it was not restraint before its release because in a
1
Firoz Iqbal Khan v Union of India[2021] 2 SCC 596
2
ibid(n 1)
3
ibid(n 1)
4
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty(Batoche Books Limited 2001)
5
ibid(n 4) 18-52
6
Ibid(n 4) 18-52
democratic country like India there is free flow information and if it regarded incendiary then it
will be punished using the facts instead to deter such expression. But, if the prior restriction does
not allow how to protect society from those who try to arise violence in the name of the religious
community as their work is done when violence or hatred spread? For this Mill try to say that the
government and individuals must make the claim carefully and never impose on others unless the
claim is the truest opinion7 while the UPSC jihad program is base on false ground and attacking
the Muslim community than its duty of government to restraint such speech.8

RULE OF LAW

In any civil society when there is harm due to the liberty of expression, the legal force can be
used to prevent and punish that conduct. Media plays an important role in society and is
considered the fourth pillar of democracy9. Media is an institution in democracy and it has to
uphold the constitution and should be responsible towards society. There is an increase in several
communal violence and hatred because of media such as ‘Bindass Bol- UPSC jihad’ programme
of Sudershan TV that’s prima facie content, tenor and attempt are to tell that Muslims are trying
to infiltrate the civil services which present community in disrespectful manner and hatred. 10 The
claims that were made by Sudarshan tv were also false like preferring Muslims in UPSC, more
attempts, free coaching center by govt., etc. and the court was able to stop the UPSC Jihad show
after the release of four episodes out of fourteen episodes which spread hatred towards the
Muslim community.11

Why the court or state was not able to prior restrict the programme before its broadcasting? To
understand to what extent can the Freedom of Press and expression can be restraint, this paper
has gone through Romesh Thaper v. the State of Madras12 here Govt. of Madras imposed ban on
circulation and entry of petitioner’s journal but courts majority quash the order of govt. and tells
that when state prior restricts the freedom of speech and press, take the duty to held its
constitutionality under Article 19(2), while in Virendra vs the State of Punjab13 here govt. of
7
ibid(n 4) 18-52
8
Ibid(n 4) 18-52
9
Akshay Goel, Prior Restraint on Media(Legal Service India) <http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/560/Prior-
Restraint-On-Media.html> accessed 30th September 2021
10
ibid(n 1)
11
ibid(n 1)
12
Romesh Thaper v State of Madras 1950 AIR SC 124
13
Virendra v State of Madras 1957 AIR SC 896
Punjab placed restriction under Punjab Special Power Act, 1956 on publication and entry of
newspaper that were favoring Save Hindu Agitation, that time there was the rise in communal
tension between Hindu and Akhali Sikh over the partition of Punjab on communal and linguistic
basis. The newspaper can further increase the communal tension and the court also tell it
reasonable under Article 19(2) for the interest of public order. While the Act was declared
impugned as it violates Article 19(1). Thus, Court allowed to prior restrict the Freedom of the
Press in the interest of public order.

Today, there is the law that governs the freedom of the press and on what basis it is restraint, The
programme code [R.6(1)(c), R.6(1)(d)] under Cable and Television Networks(Regulation) Act,
1995 express that no programme should be carried out which attack religion or community and
use false claims to promote communal attitudes 14 and the Article 19(2) of constitution expresses
that liberty to speech is no an absolute right, it can be restricted in case of national security and
the interest of society15. All the above information tells that the ‘Bindass-Bol- JPSC Jihad’
programme must be restraint. how it can care that there will be no such programme telecast
which violates the law? Firstly, there needs to be an obligation on the part of the channel to not
violate the law while exercising their right to speech and should have a strict self-regulatory
policy. Secondly, the state must have a regulatory body that regulates the broadcasting of shows
which violates the spirit of the constitution.

OBJECTIONS TO MY PAPER

This section will be engaging with the objections to my thesis that the UPSC-Jihad programme
should not be air. First, that if liberty of speech is restricted then how the truth will come in
society as Mill told? Second, Mill told that even if an opinion is false it should not be suppressed
as if it will contain partial truth, then is it right to restrict the UPSC Jihad programme?

Addressing the first issue, according to Mill liberty of speech leads to the marketplace of ideas
where truth evolves after fair discussion in society, which I think is important for any democratic
country and should be protected from the tyranny of state but as mill also said that many
opinions in future will be rejected or accepted in future which now are general or absurd 16.

14
Cable and Television Networks(Regulation) Act, 1995 [Act no.7 of 1995]
15
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(2)
16
ibid(n 3) 18-52
During the writing of his book there was no clear democracy in Britain, but today there is
democracy and people elect their representative government which is of the people, by the
people, for the people and works according to the constitution which gives everyone Freedom of
speech and restricts those opinions which are a threat to public order, morality, decency, the
integrity of the country.17 So there is no restriction on speech until it does not violate the rules
which Mill also said that for the interest of truth and justice it is important to restrain opinion
have vituperative language.18 In the same way, as UPSC Jihad program is not only based on false
claims but is also violating the law by defaming, vilifying, and trying to attack the Muslim
community and there are biases and prejudices and self-interest, to get the Trp to stay in the top
chart which helps them to earn money and the communal issue is sensitive in India since its
independence to present of which News Channel take benefit to increase their Trp and the case
of Sudershan Tv can be also an attempt to increase Trp for that it does not care to vilify religious
community.19 So, it is not wrong to stop the broadcasting of the ‘Bindass Bol- UPSC Jihad’
programme and there is no harm to the truth.

CONCLUSION

It is not denied that Freedom of Speech and Expression is one of an integral part of any
democratic country. Yet, through various judicial decisions laid that the Freedom of the press is
also its part and our Constitution tries to strike balance between public order and Freedom of
Speech and Expression. Throughout the paper, it has been argued that liberty of speech is not
absolute and when there is a disfavor to the constitutional norms of the country it will be
restricted.

Mill gave more importance to Freedom Of Speech and believe it should not be restricted until it
is incendiary. This paper has explained Mill’s view on the liberty of speech and then to the
legality of liberty of speech in Indian law with the writers view and after that this paper mention
the objections and their responses.

17
ibid (n 15)
18
ibid(n 3)18-52
19
Kaveree Bamzai, How TRP-hungry news anchors turned the talk into voices’ (New Indian Express, 26th October
2020)<https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/oct/25/anchor-anarchy-how-trp-hungry-news-anchors-
turned-the-talk-into-voices-2213800.html> accessed 30th September 2021
After the whole analysis, this paper concludes that the ‘Bindass Bol – UPSC Jihad’ programme
must be restricted to broadcast and there should be a committee that regulates the News Channel
to not broadcast anything which disturbs the integrity and unity of the nation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty(Batoche Books Limited 2001)

STATUTES AND LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(2)

2. Cable and Television Networks(Regulation) Act, 1995 [Act no.7 of 1995]

NEWS ARTICLES

1. Akshay Goel, Prior Restraint on Media(Legal Service India)

<http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/560/Prior-Restraint-On-Media.html>
accessed 30th September 2021
2. Kaveree Bamzai, How TRP-hungry news anchors turned the talk into voices’ (New
IndianExpress, 26th October
2020)<https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/oct/25/anchor-anarchy-
how-trp-hungry-news-anchors-turned-the-talk-into-voices-2213800.html> accessed
30th September 2021

CASES

1. Firoz Iqbal Khan v Union of India[2021] 2 SCC 596

2. Romesh Thaper v State of Madras 1950 AIR SC 124
1. Virendra v State of Madras 1957 AIR SC 896