Read Time: 06 minutes
The petitioner objected to the time being given for counter, saying SG could not come and that he had just realized that a counter affidavit had not been filed
The Supreme Court today has granted two weeks time to Central government for responding to a PIL filed against the prohibition on the BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi in India.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar. SG Mehta informed the bench that a counter had not been filed and sought time for the same.
Advocate CU Singh, for the petitioners, objected to the same saying, "I have a serious objection in this matter, your lordships passed an order in February 2023. Ultimately, at the end of the day this is not a situation where there can be any improvement on administrative order by filing a counter".
Justice Khanna said there had to be a counter on record. "I will fix a date in January first or second week", he added.
Court further opined that the matter would require consideration and could not be disposed of in a ten-minute hearing.
In February, Supreme Court had refused to stay the Centre's prohibition order which stated that the documentary was agenda driven and is based on conjectures, perpetuating a colonial mindset.
A bench of Justices MM Sundaresh and Sanjiv Khanna had further told Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the plea's filed by N. Ram, Mahua Moitra and Prashant Bhushan that they cannot pass interim orders without a hearing.
Court was earlier informed that tweets on the documentary had been blocked & students have been suspended from campus for posting about the same.
Notably, the plea filed by Advocate ML Sharma seeks ex parte quashing of the Government's order dated January 21, 2023 issued under Rule 16 of IT Rules 2021, directing Youtube and Twitter to remove links posting the BBC documentary about the 2002 Gujarat Communal violence as being illegal, malafide, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void ab-initio & ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Sharma had argued that the BBC documentary has reflected rue facts with original recording of the victims of 2002 riots as well as other concerned persons involved in the scenario of riot which can be used for judicial justice, however as it has been banned by the government, that is a violation of freedom of speech and expression.
A further prayer has been made before the Top Court to examine the BBC documentary's legal value to prosecute involved accused persons in the interest of justice.
Several protests have also taken place at different Universities in New Delhi, Calcutta, Kerala, Odisha, Maharashtra and other parts seeking screening of the BBC documentary, the petition adds.
After the documentary was released, it was also criticised in a joint statement by more than 300 former judges, bureaucrats and prominent figures who accused the BBC of pushing a British imperialist agenda and “setting itself up as both judge and jury to resurrect Hindu-Muslim tensions”.
Case Title: N. Ram Vs Union of India | ML Sharma vs. Union of India
Please Login or Register
