The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue interim order against the central government’s decision to ban the controversial propaganda BBC documentary on PM Narendra Modi. Hearing two petitions filed in the matter, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh said that no order can be issued without getting a reply from the centre first.
“Issue notice.. list in April 2023,” the Supreme Court bench ordered. The bench also directed the govt to produce original records on the next date of the hearing in April this year.
Two petitions were filed against the union govt’s directive to remove the videos and links of the BBC Channel 2 documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ from YouTube and other social media platforms. One of the pleas was filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and journalist N Ram. The other plea was filed by serial petitioner advocate Manohar Lal Sharma.
In an earlier hearing, while appearing for N Ram and Prashant Bhushan, senior advocate CU Singh had said that the tweets of his clients containing links to the videos were removed allegedly using emergency powers. ML Sharma contented in his petition that the ban on the documentary is “malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional”.
Today advocate CU Singh said that Emergency powers have been invoked by the govt without putting the powers in the public domain. He said that powers were used under the IT rules for intermediaries, which are under challenged. He also alleged that on the basis of ‘secret order’, universities are taking actions against students for screening the documentary.
Therefore, he sought an interim stay order against the ban of the documentary. However, the court refused to grant any interim relief. “Can we allow the interim prayer without hearing them?” the bench said.
The court ordered to issue notice to the centre, returnable in April. While CU Singh sought an earlier date for the next hearing, the court said that it is not possible, and April is the shortest date possible.
The court also gave 3 weeks of time to file a counter-affidavit, and after that 2 weeks to file rejoinders.
When the petitioners argued that universities are rusticating students for screening the videos, the court said that it is separate issue. The court also asked why the petitioners approached it directly without going to high court first. Advocate CU Singh said that this is because the union govt goes before the HC and seeks stay. Apart from seeking a lifting of the ban, Sharma also sought an investigation into those responsible for failing to contain the Gujarat riots.
ML Sharma said that his PIL is for the citizens of India, while the other petition is on personal grievances as their tweets have been deleted on the orders of the govt. But the court refused to treat it as a different issue, and tagged ML Sharma’s petition with the earlier petition by Bhushan, Ram and Moitra.
The Supreme Court bench also noted that despite the ban order, people have been accessing the documentary..
