By PTI
NEW DELHI: A PIL has been filed within the Supreme Court towards the Centre’s determination to “ban” a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots within the nation, alleging it was “malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma additionally urged the apex court docket to name and study the BBC documentary – each components I and II – and sought motion towards individuals who had been accountable and had been concerned straight and not directly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Sharma stated that in his PIL he has raised a constitutional query and the highest court docket has to resolve whether or not residents have the fitting underneath Article 19 (1) (2) to see information, info and experiences on the 2002 Gujarat riots.
He has sought route to quash the order dated January 21, 2023, of the Ministry of the Information and Broadcasting, terming it as unlawful, malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
His plea stated whether or not the central authorities can curtail freedom of the press which is a elementary proper as assured underneath Article 19 (1) (2) of the Constitution.
“Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the president, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the central government?” the PIL stated.
It claimed the BBC documentary has “recorded facts” that are additionally “evidence” and can be utilized to additional the reason for justice for the victims.
On January 21, the Centre issued instructions for blocking a number of YouTube movies and Twitter posts sharing hyperlinks to the controversial BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”, in line with sources.
NEW DELHI: A PIL has been filed within the Supreme Court towards the Centre’s determination to “ban” a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots within the nation, alleging it was “malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma additionally urged the apex court docket to name and study the BBC documentary – each components I and II – and sought motion towards individuals who had been accountable and had been concerned straight and not directly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Sharma stated that in his PIL he has raised a constitutional query and the highest court docket has to resolve whether or not residents have the fitting underneath Article 19 (1) (2) to see information, info and experiences on the 2002 Gujarat riots.
He has sought route to quash the order dated January 21, 2023, of the Ministry of the Information and Broadcasting, terming it as unlawful, malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
His plea stated whether or not the central authorities can curtail freedom of the press which is a elementary proper as assured underneath Article 19 (1) (2) of the Constitution.
“Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the president, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the central government?” the PIL stated.
It claimed the BBC documentary has “recorded facts” that are additionally “evidence” and can be utilized to additional the reason for justice for the victims.
On January 21, the Centre issued instructions for blocking a number of YouTube movies and Twitter posts sharing hyperlinks to the controversial BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”, in line with sources.
