Tribune News Service
New Delhi, September 23
The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred listening to on a petition searching for ban on Sudarshan News’ controversial programme ‘UPSC Jihad’ after the Centre mentioned it has issued a present trigger discover to the TV channel.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta advised a Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud that in excercise of energy conferred upon it underneath the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, the Central Government has issued a present trigger discover to Sudarshan News at the moment.
Since the discover was returnable on September 28, Mehta requested the highest courtroom to defer the listening to.
Posting the matter for additional listening to on October 5, the Bench requested the Centre to file a report concerning the choice taken by it.
The Bench took notice of the truth that counsel for numerous events have been additionally of the view that since present trigger had been issued to Sudarshan News, the proceedings must be referred.
The Bench, nonetheless, made it clear that the discover shall be handled in accordance with regulation and its order restraining Sudarshan News from telecasting additional episodes of its controversial programme shall proceed. The programme had alleged Muslims have been “infiltrating” civil companies in a deliberate method.
The prime courtroom famous that if it had not stopped telecast, all 10 episodes of the programme would have been telecast by now.
It wished the Centre to listen to the petitioner together with Sudarshan News.
“If a complaint is made… you hear the complainant. Principles of natural justice call for you to hear them. Will it be illegal to hear the petitioner?” questioned Justice KM Joseph who’s a part of the Bench.
“If ten thousand complaints are recieved then we cannot hear them all…I would not like to concede to it. You may examine this after the ministry passes an order,” Mehta mentioned.
As a number of counsel wished to be heard by the Government, the Bench mentioned a minimum of the petitioner must be heard.
“We can’t, My Lords. A bad fact had appealed the court but that cannot become a bad precedent,” mentioned Mehta.
Petitioner Firoz Iqbal Khan’s counsel, senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhari, mentioned, “If the government order is against us, we would like to challenge it.”