Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

A CJI Chandrachud led bench today said that it would hear the PIL filed before the Supreme Court challenging the prohibition on the BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi in India on February 6, 2023.

Senior Advocate CU Singh informed the CJI that tweets on the documentary have been blocked & students have been suspended from campus for posting about the same.

Also, the Supreme Court will also be hearing separate petitions filed by journalist N Ram and Advocate Prashant Bhushan on taking down their of tweets with links of the BBC Documentary on next Monday.

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 has 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.

"BBC Documentary upon Gujrat riot recorded and was released for public view. It was an independent work upon Gujarat riot facts, recorded victims, people, officers. Police people and other disclosing facts. However due to fear of truth said documentary have been banned from viewership in In India...", the petition filed under Article 32 states.

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.

Case Title: ML Sharma vs. Union of India