An exasperated Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the “freedom of speech may be the most abused freedom in recent times”.

The comment came as the court rapped the Centre for filing an “evasive” affidavit through a “junior” on a plea that alleged that some media outlets were “demonising” Muslims over the spread of the pandemic.

“Well, they (the Union government) are entitled to make any argument like you people (lawyers) also make… but this freedom of speech may be the most abused freedom in recent times,” Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, heading a bench that included Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, said.

He did not specify if he was referring to the media’s alleged portrayal of Muslims as deliberate spreaders of the coronavirus, or to the government’s affidavit that the court had found to contain “nonsensical averments”, or to a general trend.

The observation came after senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for petitioner Jamiat Ulema Hind that had sought restraints on the media from maligning an entire community, objected to the government’s August 6 affidavit.

On the plea that the petition had not named specific media establishments, the government had argued it could not impose a blanket “gag order” since that would amount to “muzzling” the media.

“We find it (the affidavit) extremely evasive and (it) mentions nothing about bad reporting. How can you say there is no incident (of biased reporting)?” the court asked solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.

It asked Mehta to ensure that a secretary-rank official in the I&B ministry filed a fresh affidavit. The August 6 affidavit was filed by Sonika Khattar, an undersecretary.

The proceedings appeared to reflect an ironic role reversal of sorts — the custodian of the Constitution highlighting abuse of the freedom of speech and the Centre, no stranger to accusations of infringing on citizens’ rights or crushing dissent, conveniently batting for media freedom.

Another Supreme Court bench had made similar remarks last month while hearing another case relating to media coverage of Muslims.

The court had at the time passed an interim injunction on a programme by the Sudarshan News television channel that suggested that “jihadis” were “infiltrating” central services.

‘Junior’ jab

Justice Bobde castigated the Centre over a junior officer filing a shoddy reply to the petition.

“The affidavit is filed by junior officer. It is extremely evasive, does not respond to the incidents cited by petitioner…. You can’t treat this court the way you are treating (it).

Some of your junior officer, undersecretary, has filed the affidavit!” Justice Bobde told Mehta.

“You have the secretary of the department file an affidavit without making such nonsensical averments like the petitioners haven’t showed any instance of bad media reporting,” he said.

After Mehta said a fresh affidavit would be filed, the court posted the next hearing after two weeks.

Earlier, the court had stressed that the Cable Television Networks Act allowed the government to regulate only cable operators and not the broadcasters.

“Now we want to know, does the government have any powers to ban or question the TV broadcast signals?” it asked. “We also want all acts under which you have exercised similar powers in the past.”

Jamiat had moved the petition in April, highlighting how some media outlets were citing the mid-March Tablighi Jamaat gathering in Delhi to accuse Muslims of spreading Covid-19, using phrases such as “Corona jihad”, “Corona terrorism” and “Corona bombs”.

Several members of the Jamaat congregation had been found Covid-positive after they had travelled to other states. Many in the media used this “unfortunate incident” to “demonise the entire Muslim community”, the petition said.

It referred to “fake reports and/or videos” targeting Muslims, such as “a fake video of Sufi followers indulging in mass sneezing or another fake video showing Muslim persons licking vessels allegedly to perpetrate the spread of corona in the country”.

It underlined that the “communal” reporting had fuelled hate at a time the February riots in Delhi had left the nation “tense and sensitive”.