On October 14th, the Supreme Court dismissed Sindhi Sangat’s petition for a 24-hour Sindhi language channel on Doordarshan, upholding a prior Delhi High Court decision. The Court emphasized alternative methods for language preservation and recognized existing Sindhi programming on regional channels as sufficient, highlighting practical broadcasting considerations in promoting linguistic diversity.
New Delhi: Today, on October 14th, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the NGO Sindhi Sangat, which sought directions from the Centre to launch a 24-hour Sindhi language channel on Doordarshan. A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra rejected the NGO’s plea, upholding the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court.
The top court ruled that “there may be other means to preserve the language,” suggesting that broadcasting a 24-hour Sindhi channel may not be the only way to safeguard the language’s legacy. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who represented the NGO, argued that public broadcasting is a significant tool for preserving languages, but the Court remained unconvinced by the petition.
Background of the Case
The Court dismissed the petition filed by Sindhi Sangat, stating that no citizen can assert a fundamental right under Article 29 of the Constitution to demand that the government start a separate language channel.
“The right claimed under Article 29 for preserving the language of the Sindhi population cannot translate into an absolute or indefeasible right to initiate a separate language channel,”
remarked the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its ruling dismissing the petition.
The case had its origins in a petition filed by Sindhi Sangat in the Delhi High Court, where the NGO sought directions for the establishment of a dedicated 24-hour Sindhi channel. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition in May 2023, citing that the decision of Prasar Bharati not to start a full-time Sindhi channel was based on reasonable grounds.
The Delhi High Court had observed that the NGO failed to establish any legal or constitutional right that would require the Court to direct the government to allocate a 24-hour Sindhi channel on Doordarshan. It called the plea “misplaced”, noting that the demand did not meet the threshold required to interfere with Prasar Bharati’s decision-making process.
Prasar Bharati defended its stance by stating that the Sindhi-speaking population in India, according to the last census, stood at approximately 26 lakh people. As such, a dedicated 24-hour channel would not be sustainable.
Moreover, Prasar Bharati pointed out that Sindhi language programmes are already being broadcast on channels like DD Girnar, DD Rajasthan, and DD Sahyadri, which serve regions with significant Sindhi populations, including Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra. These channels are available across India and can also be accessed via the DTH (Direct to Home) platform.
The Delhi High Court had supported this rationale, stating,
“The decision of Respondent No. 2 to include programmes in Sindhi language on its DD Girnar, DD Rajasthan, and DD Sahyadri channels appears rational and reasonable.”
It concluded that these efforts met the “adequate coverage” requirement as mandated by Section 12(2)(d) of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990.
Supreme Court’s Reaffirmation of the Delhi High Court Ruling
By dismissing the plea, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Delhi High Court’s decision. The top court acknowledged that Prasar Bharati’s approach was pragmatic and within the framework of the law. The bench stressed that the inclusion of Sindhi programmes in regional channels provided adequate coverage and represented a balanced solution to promoting Sindhi culture and language.
The Court’s refusal to direct the establishment of a 24-hour Sindhi language channel highlights a broader perspective on language preservation in the country. While acknowledging the importance of protecting India’s diverse linguistic heritage, the Court implied that there are multiple ways to achieve this goal without imposing unrealistic demands on public broadcasting services.
Sindhi Sangat, the petitioner, has been advocating for a dedicated Sindhi channel for years, emphasizing that public broadcasting plays a crucial role in sustaining and promoting endangered languages. The NGO believes that a 24-hour Sindhi channel would provide the necessary platform for the community to preserve its cultural and linguistic identity.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests that the preservation of language need not solely depend on dedicated TV channels. With the availability of Sindhi programmes on existing Doordarshan channels and advancements in digital platforms, there are numerous avenues to promote and sustain the Sindhi language.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the plea for a 24-hour Sindhi channel on Doordarshan underscores the importance of balancing language preservation with practical broadcasting considerations. The Court’s statement that “there may be other means to preserve the language” highlights the need for creative approaches in safeguarding linguistic diversity.
While the demand for a full-time Sindhi channel may have been rejected, the inclusion of Sindhi content on regional Doordarshan channels offers a reasonable alternative. In the era of digital media, language preservation efforts could also expand into online platforms, ensuring the rich cultural heritage of the Sindhi community continues to thrive in new and innovative ways.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
