A Case Against Judicial Censorship

Introduction

The recent controversy surrounding the release of the Netflix documentary Bad Boy Billionaires and the airing of a show on Sudarshan TV have reignited the debate around the issue of judicial censorship in India. What has been even more surprising in the case of these two contentious programmes is the differing approach adopted by the Court, thus highlighting a grey area in the realm of censorship laws. A 49-second trailer of an upcoming show on Sudarshan TV, which had a deep communal overtone, caused a massive uproar on social media and led to the filing of numerous complaints with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. On the basis of these complaints, a notice had been issued to the channel by the Ministry for clarifying details over the content of the show with regards to the programme code of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court refused to stay the broadcast of the show.

The Delhi High Court, however, restrained[1] the channel from broadcasting it and subsequently refused to vacate the order. Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995[2] states that “no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service any programme unless such programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code”. Section 19[3] confers the power to prohibit a broadcast in public interest if it may promote disharmony or enmity between different religious or racial groups as well on the basis of case and community. In its reply to the notice, Sudarshan TV contended that its show could not be stopped from being telecast as that would amount to pre-censorship by the Ministry. The Ministry, after receiving the reply, went on to allow the telecast of the show[4]. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere, had stated that “the Court has to be circumspect in imposing a prior restraint on publication or the airing of views. We note that under statutory provisions, competent authorities are vested with powers to ensure compliance with the law”.

In the Netflix case, a court in Bihar[5] stayed the release of Bad Boy Billionaires on a plea by Subrata Roy, one of those named in the documentary, as it found that Roy qualified the threefold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Merely two days before this stay, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had opposed Mehul Choksi’s (also portrayed in the documentary) writ petition in the Delhi High Court on the ground that “freedom of speech and expression is cardinal and should be given full play”. A civil court in Hyderabad also restrained[6] the release of the series in a petition filed by B. Ramalinga Raju, who is one of the four billionaires depicted in the Netflix show.

Remix: Where the Mind...

Where the mind is suppressed and hands are tied,

Where the truth costs a premium and lies are plenty abound,

Where mouths are shut and eyes are closed,

in silent support of the slaughter of the lamb.

Where the innocent poor are convicted,

by the guilty rich.

Where faith is blind, and, trust is governed by greed.

Where people are followed

but not their ideals.

Where humanity is divided by community

Where integrity is marred by religion

Where identity is scarred by colour

Into that joke of freedom, my People,

Our country has awakened!

Ramblings: Digital Apartheid

 

Introduction – The pandemic has caused a paradigm shift in the manner in which education is imparted across the country. Almost in an instant, schools and colleges embraced the internet and initiated classes on video-conferencing applications such as Zoom, Webex and Meet. While it was heartening to see how adaptive students and teachers have been to technology, online education has also led to a growing gulf between economically weaker students and their right of access to education. The Delhi High Court recently recognised these ill-effects of shifting education to an online medium as Digital Apartheid. This article explores the contours of this judgement along with the exclusionary effect of online education, and is concluded with certain suggestions to bridge the burgeoning divide.

 

How is Online Education Discriminatory? – The disruption in education caused by the lockdown has been unparalleled. There is no one who has not been impacted by the closure of educational institutes. However, the degree of impact has been skewed far more heavily upon those who do not have the same scale of access to resources such as electricity, internet and internet-enabled devices. The level of smartphone penetration in India is still quite low for one to presume that each and every child could easily arrange for a device to be available to him/her for several hours in a day. Notwithstanding the unavailability of devices, it cannot be suggested by any prudent person that a speedy, stable internet network is within the reach of all as India’s internet penetration currently stands at only 40 per-cent.