The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear the pleas challenging the Union government’s decision to block the BBC’s documentary on the Gujarat riots of 2002 and Narendra Modi’s role in it.
LiveLaw has reported that a petition had been filed by advocate M.L. Sharma, a regular in this regard. He calls the move to ban the documentary “malafide, arbitrary and unconstitutional”.
A separate petition was filed by journalist N. Ram, advocate Prashant Bhushan, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and others, through senior advocate C.U. Singh.
Ram and Bhushan’s tweets on the documentary were taken down by the social media giant, Twitter, after a direction from the government. YouTube links of ‘India: The Modi Question‘ were also reportedly removed after the Union government’s order. The documentary is understood to be critical of Modi’s role during the violence, holding him “directly responsible for it.”
Singh, on behalf of his clients, has highlighted in the plea that the Union government has not yet formally publicised the blocking order:
“[T]he order dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, and subsequent and consequential proceedings under Rule 16 of Rules, 2021 censoring the documentary and tweets of the petitioners are not available in the public domain. Censoring the freedom of speech and expression of the petitioners by the Executive through opaque orders and proceedings is manifestly arbitrary as it frustrates the fundamental right of petitioners to effectively seek judicial review of administrative actions under Article 226 and Article 32 of the constitution of India in violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.”
The plea also highlights freedom of the press, including the right to circulate media and determine the value of such circulation. It calls the blocking of the documentary an infringement on this right.
“It is the fundamental right of the petitioners and media to discuss the contents of the documentary, what it says, and the viewpoints of all those who have been interviewed in it with other citizens of the country.”
The plea also holds that a government should be open to criticism of itself, noting that:
“Those who hold important positions must have shoulders which are broad enough to accept with grace a critique of themselves. Critical appraisal is the cornerstone of democracy and the power of the film as a medium of expression lies in its ability to contribute to that appraisal.”
The petitioners say in their plea that “criticism of the Government does not tantamount to violating the sovereignty and integrity of India.”
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud told petitioners who were asking for an urgent listing that the matter will be listed next Monday, February 6.
Universities across India have seen attempts by students to screen the documentary. In some, authorities have clamped down. The Rajasthan Central University in Ajmer has suspended 11 students after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad circulated a list of names of those who had allegedly watched the documentary.
At New Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia University and Jawaharlal Nehru University, power was allegedly cut off by authorities as students tried to watch the documentary.