[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by an NGO which sought directions to the Centre to start a 24-hour Sindhi language channel on Doordarshan. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra rejected NGO Sindhi Sangat‘s petition challenging an order of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the plea.
The top court said there may be other means to preserve the language.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the NGO, said one of the ways to preserve the language is through public broadcasting.
The NGO has moved the top court against the May 27 order of the high court which dismissed the plea, saying the decision of Prasar Bharati not to start a 24-hour Sindhi language channel is based on an intelligible differentia.
The high court, in its order, said the NGO has been unable to persuade it concerning the legal right or constitutional right to seek directions for allocating a 24-hour Sindhi channel on Doordarshan and its plea was “misplaced”.
It had said that section 12(2)(d) of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, places an obligation on Prasar Bharati to provide “adequate coverage” to the diverse cultures and languages of the various regions.
Prasar Bharati, in its reply, said according to the then census, the population of Sindhi-speaking people in the country was approximately 26 lakh and a full-time channel was not sustainable.
“It is stated that, however, in the discharge of its duty, Respondent No. 2 (Prasar Bharati) has been duly telecasting programmes in Sindhi language on its DD Girnar, DD Rajasthan and DD Sahyadri channels which covers areas where the Sindhi population is mainly concentrated i.e., Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.
“It is stated that these channels are available throughout the country and are also carried on the DTH1 platform,” the high court noted.
“The decision of Respondent No. 2 to include programmes in Sindhi language on its DD Girnar, DD Rajasthan and DD Sahyadri channels, which cover states which as per Respondent No. 2 have main concentration of the Sindhi population appears rational and reasonable to this court and it makes the tests of ‘adequate coverage’ contemplated in the provision,” it added.
[ad_2]
Source link
