[LIVE UPDATES] SC Hearing Plea Against Sudarshan TV's "UPSC Jihad" Show

Justice Chandrachud: The issue is - What should be the nature of an injunction? Whether it should be a blanket injunction and if the court does issue it, would it also injunct protected speech or should the court restrict him only to a certain extent?

Justice Chandrachud: There may be some parts of the program which may be relatable to Journalistic views.

The editor-in-chief says "there is foreign funding in this organisation. Surely public interest attracted then.... he may be right, he may be wrong"

Justice Chandrachud that a person may put out an article on Live Law about the successor of #RBG, "this shall not be attracted"...

Justice Chandrachud says,

"Look at 6(M) ...

"Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups..."

Farasat: Your lordships will have to "severely restrict" how it passes an order in this case.

Farasat: All channels gets uplinking and downlinking links and they get licences for this wherein the program code must be followed. The embargo here in section 20 is simply on "No Person".

Justice Joseph: Question is, is there any program today which is not offensive? In India we have a statutory mechanism where the government can interfere.

Farasat: The most important difference is the embargo on prohibition of any public tv operator. The embargo is on a person under the law.

Justice K M Joseph asks the Solicitor General : Did the Central Government keep a watch over the program after it permitted the telecast of four episodes?

Justice Joseph: In England, no provision of pre-broadcast plan but in India we have a departure from other jurisdictions. We have the power for pre-publication ban if govt. does not enforce it.