Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Setting Up A 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan (DD) TV Channel

On October 14, 2024 (Today), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a plea by Sindhi Sangat for setting up a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan (DD) TV channel. In the plea, the petitioner sought direction to the Union Government and the Prasar Bharati to run a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan TV channel to preserve the language and cultural heritage of the Sindhi community. The three-judge bench of the top court constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the petition observing that a citizen, based on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 29 of the Indian Constitution, cannot claim that the government should start a separate channel in their language. It said, “The right which is claimed under Article 29 for preserving the language of the Sindhi population cannot result in an absolute or indefeasible right for the commencement of a separate language channel for a particular language.” 

Firstly, the Delhi High Court (HC) heard the matter and dismissed the petitioner’s plea stating, ‘a mandamus cannot be issued for the start of a separate language channel’. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the top court. During the proceedings, the CJI expressed disinclination to entertain the plea and said that the case was a policy matter. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising who appeared for the petitioner contended that the criteria followed by the respondents for starting DD language channels were irrelevant and arbitrary. She said that the DD broadcasts programs in the primary language of its local region which did not meet the test of reasonableness as per the 'Wednesbury principles', given that the Sindhi population does not have a state of their own. She added, “This is the solitary example of a language which does not have a state. Perhaps, the same with the Parsi language. There is a language in India which has no state has no state to call its own. Had there been a state called, Sindh, there would have been a channel. Do not link your policy with the territoriality of the issue because you are dealing with a language which does not have a territory. You cannot have the same policy.”

In context, the CJI said that these issues were not raised before the HC. Replying to this, Senior Advocate Jaising said that the Courts can mould the relief. She added that it would help in preserving a language and protect linguistic heritage. After hearing this, the CJI said “Can a citizen say that there must be a mandate to start a separate channel to preserve my language under Article 29? There are other means of preserving a language. Create more awareness.” Public broadcasting is the most effective means of preserving a language, Jaising replied. Further, the CJI said, “Not necessarily. That depends on the profile of the community. If it is a community which is predominantly rural, public broadcasting would be an important means. But if the communities are urban, for instance, the Sindhis, I understand, are basically in the urban and semi-urban areas. Therefore public broadcasting is not the only means. Sandhis are predominantly a business community.” After hearing the matter, the CJI said, “Sorry, we have dismissed this.”