Media Promoting Communal Attitude Is Against Diversity & Harmony Of Our Country: Justice K M Joseph

first_imgTop StoriesMedia Promoting Communal Attitude Is Against Diversity & Harmony Of Our Country: Justice K M Joseph LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK15 Sep 2020 7:26 AMShare This – xDuring the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court against Sudarshan TV News show on Muslims clearing the UPSC exam, Justice K M Joseph observed that media promoting communal attitude was against the diversity and harmony of our country.Justice Joseph, sharing the bench with the presiding judge Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra, referred to the Programme Code framed by…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginDuring the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court against Sudarshan TV News show on Muslims clearing the UPSC exam, Justice K M Joseph observed that media promoting communal attitude was against the diversity and harmony of our country.Justice Joseph, sharing the bench with the presiding judge Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra, referred to the Programme Code framed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1994.Clause 6(c) of the programme code prohibited the transmission of programs “Contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes”When Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate appearing for the Sudarshan News TV channel, denied that the controversial show was vilifying or targeting Muslims and claimed that the show was part of “investigative journalism”, Justice Joseph invited his attention to the phrase “promote communal attitudes” in the Code.”Media cannot promote communal attitude. That is against the diversity and harmony of our country”, he told Mr. Divan.Justice Joseph also highlighted the submissions made by the intervenors that the show had factually incorrect statements such as Muslims had a higher upper-age limit and more attempts for the UPSC exam when compared to others.When the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, submitted that there are statutory authorities under the Cable TV Act to deal with the violations, Justice Joseph said, “the damage will be irreversible” – hinting that the Court cannot afford to wait for the statutory authorities to act against the program.’This Is So Insidious. Can This Be Tolerated In A Free Society?’: Justice Chandrachud On Sudarshan TV’s “UPSC Jihad” ShowDuring the beginning of the hearing, Justice Joseph spoke about the need to bring transparency in the ownership pattern of the media houses.”I feel we should have a system for visual model as to who owns what website. Second there should be the revenue model for access. This information should be available for public access”, he said.He also commented it was unfair that some media channels muted the speakers when they spoke against the anchor.After the elaborate hearing, the SC passed an order restraining the telecast of remaining episodes of the ‘Bol Bindas’ show, making a prima facie observation that “the object, intent and purpose of the program is to vilify the Muslim community with an insidious attempt to portray them as part of a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services”J Chandrachud : When you say students of Jamia are part of a conspiracy to infiltrate civil services, that is not permissible. You cannot target one community and brand them a particular manner.J Joseph quips in : That too by making factually incorrect statements.— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 15, 2020 J Chandrachud : As a Supreme Court of the nation we cannot allow you to say that Muslims are infiltrating civil services. You cannot say that the journalist has absolute freedom doing this.#SudarshanNews#SureshChavhanke— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 15, 2020 Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

SC Contempt Verdict Is A Fundamental Assault On Freedom Of Speech & Independence Of Bar: Prashant Bhushan Urges BCD To Not Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Him [Read Reply]

first_imgTop StoriesSC Contempt Verdict Is A Fundamental Assault On Freedom Of Speech & Independence Of Bar: Prashant Bhushan Urges BCD To Not Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Him [Read Reply] Akshita Saxena1 Oct 2020 1:18 AMShare This – x”I submit that the Bar Council should stand in solidarity with the rights of the members of the legal profession, and not take cognizance of the judgment of Supreme Court which have severely constricted and abridged the freedom, rights and dignity of the members of the Bar and also ordinary citizens,” said Advocate Prashant Bhushan in reply to the letter sent by Bar Council of Delhi…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”I submit that the Bar Council should stand in solidarity with the rights of the members of the legal profession, and not take cognizance of the judgment of Supreme Court which have severely constricted and abridged the freedom, rights and dignity of the members of the Bar and also ordinary citizens,” said Advocate Prashant Bhushan in reply to the letter sent by Bar Council of Delhi seeking his response as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him in view of the conviction in suo motu contempt case against him. He submitted that his two tweets that led to the conviction judgment last month, are “within the limits of freedom of expression” of a member of the Bar and “there is nothing in them which could be termed as contemptuous”. “The Supreme Court judgments holding me guilty of criminal contempt and further sentencing me for the same, are a fundamental assault on the freedom of speech and independence of the Bar,” he said. Taking cognisance of the two controversial tweets by Mr. Bhushan and the Supreme Court’s consequential verdict holding him guilty of criminal contempt, the Bar Council of Delhi had required the counsel to appear before itself to show cause as to why action under section 24A and section 35 of the Advocates’ Act not be proceeded with against him. BCD Issues Notice To Prashant Bhushan To Examine Whether Disciplinary Action Be Proceeded With Against Him Over His Two Tweets Responding to the letter, Mr. Bhushan said, “My conviction for committing criminal contempt was not a conviction for “an offence involving moral turpitude”, as is the requirement under Section 24A of the Advocates Act.” With reference to ‘professional misconduct’ under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, he said, “The test for professional misconduct as reiterated in P.D. Khandekar is whether the actions of the concerned advocate bring disrepute or dishonor to the legal profession and are perceived as such by his brothers and sisters at the Bar. In the present case, far from the Bar disapproving my tweets, I have received a groundswell of support and solidarity for my two tweets from fellow lawyers as well as from retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts.” Mr. Bhushan has pointed out that the Bar Council is not at all bound by the judgment of the Court holding him guilty, and it is for the Council itself to apply its own independent mind and come to a conclusion whether indeed he has committed an act which is worthy of suspension of right to practice law. “Thus, merely because my tweets have been held to be contemptuous by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 1/2020, it would not necessarily follow that the same also constitute “professional or other misconduct”. The law on this point was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India ((1998) 4 SCC 409),” Bhushan said. He added, “the judgments against me are tainted with breach of principles of natural justice and rule against bias. It is for this reason also that the said judgments ought to be disregarded by the BCD.” Mr. Bhushan has further claimed that the Bar Council of India Rules itself discourage an Advocate to be servile to the Court and it rather casts a “duty” upon him to raise his voice against “improper conduct by any judicial officer”. In my tweet, Mr, Bhsuhan said, I had tried to raise my voice against the closure of the courts from any sort of normal functioning, which has had a devastating impact on the people’s right to access to justice and has also affected the legal community hugely. He added, “This judgment would have the effect of criminalizing any criticism of the functioning of the judiciary and would have a chilling effect on the right of lawyers and citizens to voice their opinion.” In this regard, he has also drawn the Council’s attention to the submissions made by Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan before the Supreme Court during Mr. Bhushan’s hearing on sentencing. “Comments Were Opinion Made In Good Faith Founded on True Facts”:Rajeev Dhavan Seeks To Recall The SC Judgment Convicting Prashant Bhushan Contempt Verdict Against Prashant Bhushan Suffers From ‘Great Imbalances’; Will File Review: Dhavan Tells SC He has urged the BCD to take a firm stand in support of the freedom of speech and expression of the Bar as the very freedom, dignity, rights and independence of the Bar are at stake. Nevertheless, he has requested that in case the Council decides not to drop the proceedings against him, then the same be put on hold till his review petition against the contempt verdict and the writ petition seeking directions for an intra-court appeal in cases of original criminal conviction by the Supreme Court, are decided. Click Here To Download Letter Read Letter Next Storylast_img read more