The only plausible reason for this request to apex court is linked to the fact that any broader guideline would jeopardise the vested political interest of the government and would put a fetter on other mainstream channels from carrying on their communal agenda. Restraining the mainstream media would impede the design of the government. Yet another quite significant aspect incorporated in the request is the Centre’s suggestion to SC to confine the matter to Sudarshan News show, which claimed to “expose” the “infiltration of Muslims” in the civil services.

Quite intriguing while the Supreme Court described the programme as an attempt to vilify the Muslim community, the Modi government described it as expose. The bench, which includes Justices Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph in its order in fact had written: “It appears to the court that the object of the programme is to vilify the Muslim community and make it responsible for an insidious attempt to infiltrate the civil services…. Any attempt to vilify a community must be viewed with disfavour….” The request of the Centre in a way has been an attempt to decry the order of the court.

In an affidavit filed in court, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said the issue of “balancing between the journalist freedom and responsible journalism is a field already occupied either by the statutory provisions made by Parliament or by the judgments” of the court. Will it respond even while why some of the mainstream media channels have been indulging in vilification of the Muslims. The recent incident has been the attempt of the media to malign the Tabliki group which was outright decried by the Delhi High Court as well as Bombay High Court. Since there has been statutory provisions to stop vilification will the government let people know what action it initiated against the media houses which have been involved in the nefarious design.

The government suggestion “in view of the issue having already received attention of Parliament, as well as of this Hon’ble Court, the present petition be confined to only one channel namely Sudarshan TV, and this Hon’ble Court may not undertake the exercise of laying down any further guidelines with or without appointment of an Amicus or a Committee of persons as Amicus” is certainly not of the nature of advice. It speaks more. No doubt the fact remains “each case shall have to be decided on a case to case basis” but there is no harm if the court undertakes a broader exercise. After all what Sudarshan TV aired earlier certainly could not be described as responsible journalism. Had it been a fair reporting the apex court on September 15 must not have restrained Sudarshan News from airing the remaining episodes of its show.

In fact for some time the apex court was being requested by well-meaning people to evolve a mechanism to stop this nature of dirty game. For obvious reasons the SC had hinted that it planned to set up a panel to suggest guidelines for the electronic media. If the government intended that journalists and media must have liberty to express freely and in a responsible manner, it should have asked the wrong doers to restraint. No doubt in a democratic set up the fettering of the media is not desirable. But something has to be done to stop the menace. In this perspective the suggestion of the apex court to appoint a committee of five distinguished citizens to recommend standards for the electronic media should be welcomed. This is enough to allay any misgiving. SC’s suggestion certainly not be construed as a move to criminalise the dissent. What was being aired was certainly not be construed as dissent.

The Sanghi media dislikes the idea of Muslims getting better educational opportunities and build a robust career. Already Sachar committee report underlines the poor educational and professional achievement of the Muslims. The government to bring the digital media under the ambit of the guideline is a ploy to gag them. Of late the digital media has turned vocal critic of the government. A number of digital media portals have been doing serious stories. It said that “while in a mainstream media the publication/telecast is a one-time act, the digital media has faster reach from wider range of viewership/readership and has the potential to become viral because of several electronic applications like WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook”.

It is strange that the Modi government, the biggest beneficiary of the diversionary witch-hunt and stigmatisation, bats for 'journalistic freedom'. The concern of the court could be understood from the observation of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge bench, while passing the injunction: “We are concerned…. When you say students who are part of Jamia Millia are part of a group to infiltrate the civil services, we can’t tolerate. As the Supreme Court of the nation, we cannot allow you to say that Muslims are infiltrating the civil services. You cannot say that the journalist has absolute freedom doing this.”

The only intention of the Centre behind filing the petition is to protect its cohorts as the design has been badly exposed. It was not without reason that Justice Joseph had to observe: “We need to look at the ownership of the visual media. The entire shareholding pattern of the company must be on site for public. The revenue model of that company should also be put up to check if the government is putting more ads in one and less in another.” The court remarked “Media can’t fall foul of standards prescribed by themselves. Next, in debates, one needs to see the role of the anchor. How one listens when others speak…. But check in the TV debates the percentage of time taken by the anchor to speak. They mute the speaker and ask questions. The freedom of media is on behalf of the citizens.”

Justice Chandrachud: “The power of the electronic media is huge. The electronic media can become the focal point by targeting particular communities or groups. The anchors’ grievance is that a particular group is gaining entry into civil services. How insidious is this!” No doubt this insidious charges of the TV channel also denigrates the credibility of the UPSC and turns it suspect in the eyes of the common Indians. How can such aspersions and allegations be inflicted against the UPSC without any factual basis? Can such programmes be allowed in a free society? The court was absolutely right in seeking to know “Reputations can be damaged, image can be tarnished. How to control this? State cannot do this. Shouldn’t there be enforceable standards that the media profess itself to so that Article 19(1)(a) is upheld?

A highly critical Justice Chandrachud told the defence lawyer “Your client is doing a disservice to the nation and is not accepting India is a melting point of diverse culture. Your client needs to exercise his freedom with caution.” (IPA Service)