Supreme Court to hear petitions challenging Centre’s response to BBC docu in April

Senior Advocate C U Singh, appearing for Ram, Bhushan and Moitra, said that the IT secretary had come out with an order on January 20, 2023, “directing Twitter India to block 50 tweets with links to YouTube videos of the BBC Documentary…” and that the order was issued under the same rules that were stayed by the Bombay High Court in an interim order dated August 14, 2021.

Following this, Bhushan’s tweet of January 19 and Moitra’s tweet of January 22 with links to the documentary were removed, he said.

The secretary issued the directions in his capacity as an authorised officer under Rule 13(2) of The IT Rules 2021, Singh said, adding this is prima facie illegal as the directions “are in direct contravention of” the August 14, 2021, interim order of the Bombay High Court in Agij Promotion of Nineteenonea Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., “which directed stay of Rule 9 (1) & (3) of the IT Rules 2021 which in effect has stayed Rule 13(2) and Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2021”.

The petitioners said that the government has not officially placed any document/order or any other information in the public domain “which explains the reasons for the need to exercise its emergency powers…rather than any other mechanism provided in the rules” and that the ministry “has chosen expediency over necessity and proportionality in their response to the documentary”.

They said “the contents of the BBC Documentary and the tweets by” Bhushan and Moitra are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and that “the contents of the documentary series do not fall under any of the restrictions specified in Article 19(2) or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000”.

They contended that the Supreme Court had in the past “categorically laid down that criticism of the government or its policies or even the judgment of the Supreme Court of India does not tantamount to violating the sovereignty and integrity of India”.

While issuing the notice, the court remarked that “it is also a fact that people have been accessing those videos”.

Sharma’s plea sought quashing of the January 20 order claiming it is “illegal, malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional”. He also wants the court to examine the documentary and act against people ‘directly and indirectly’ responsible for the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Subsequently, on February 10, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh dismissed another plea that sought a ban on the operations of the BBC in India. The court called the petition “entirely misconceived”.

The plea was filed by Vishnu Gupta, who claimed to be the president of Hindu Sena, a Delhi-based outfit, in the wake of the controversy over the BBC documentary on the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to look at the background in which the developments took place. The bench, however, wondered how the matter could even be argued and asked, “You want us to put complete censorship? What is this?”

Though the petitioner urged the court to list the plea along with petitions challenging the government’s direction asking social media platforms to remove links to the documentary, the Bench declined to do so. “Let us not waste any more time… Writ plea is entirely misconceived. It has no merit,” the bench said, dismissing it.