Ashish Ranjan
The Centre has been ordered to submit the original record of its decision to remove links to the contentious BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question” about the 2002 Gujarat riots after the Supreme Court ordered the removal on Friday.
The Center was given three weeks to file a response, and the subject was set for hearing in April by a panel of justices that included Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh. Two petitions were before the court, one filed jointly by MP Mahua Moitra, journalist N Ram, and attorneys Prashant Bhushan and ML Sharma, and the other by attorney ML Sharma.
The Centre issued instructions for removing numerous YouTube videos and Twitter posts that had links to the divisive documentary on January 21.
Since the proceedings before it will only involve legal arguments, the court declined to become involved in the controversy surrounding students being punished for showing the video.
“We’re sending out notices. In three weeks, a counter affidavit must be submitted. Within two weeks following that, reapply, “said the bench.The case is scheduled for the April hearing.Additionally, “any orders directly or indirectly suppressing” the information, including those posted on social media, have been called into question in the petition.
Also Read:-ICAI CA Foundation Result Out Live: ICAI CA Foundation December 2022 Exam Result Released
According to the argument, the BBC documentary contains “recorded facts” that are also “evidence” and can be used to support the victims’ demand for justice.
The government had ordered removal and blocking of all social media links to the controversial documentary, “India: The Modi Question” produced by BBC with references to the actions of Modi as Gujarat chief minister during the 2002 riots.
The MEA termed the BBC documentary a “propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative,” while referring the the Supreme Court clearing PM Modi of all charges vis-a-vis the 2022 Gujarat riots.
However opposition parties have been critical of the Centre’s decision, calling it an interference in the right of freedom of speech and expression.
