Renowned author, Dr Kota Neelima, wife of INC leader Pawan Khera, and researcher Sangeeta Tyagi, the wife of Congress leader Rajiv Tyagi who passed away in August of a heart attack soon after a TV debate, have filed an intervention application seeking to intervene in the Sudarshan News case in the Supreme Court.
The plea seeks to assist the apex court in the matter of hate speech by TV anchors.
The plea states that the late Congress leader Tyagi was an unfortunate victim of a ‘hate speech’ during a TV debate and that applicant number 2, his wife Sangeeta, has “witnessed and suffered the irredeemable consequences of “hate speech”.”
Further, according to the plea, Dr Neelima is the founder of The Institute of Perception Studies, which has been analysing Television News Debates, under the initiative, Rate The Debate (RTD) – a research-based study of the Television News Debates in India.
The plea states that by virtue of their personal and professional experience, both the applicants are suited to assist the apex court “in the adjudication, determination of the larger issue of “hate speeches” and its malicious consequences on the polity and society of India, with specific reference to the “hate speeches peddled by the TV Anchors today”.
Where Does the Sudarshan News Case Stand?
Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke has been pulled up for telecasting his controversial ‘UPSC Jihad’ programme on its channel, and the Supreme Court has been holding hearings in this matter.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 23 September, agreed to postpone its hearing on Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke’s ‘UPSC Jihad’ show, after the Centre informed the apex court that it had sent a show-cause notice to the channel over possible violations of the programme code.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph that the show-cause notice had been sent by the I&B Ministry, giving the channel till 28 September to explain how its four episodes alleging a conspiracy by Muslims to ‘infiltrate’ the bureaucracy were not a violation of the code. They will also have to explain why action should not be taken against them under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995.
The court has deferred the matter till Monday, 5 October.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)