Veteran journalist and former editor of The Hindu N Ram, Advocate and civil rights activist Prashant Bhushan, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra have jointly petitioned the Supreme Court, calling the Centre's decision to restrict public access to the BBC documentary "India: The Modi Question" "manifestly arbitrary" and "unconstitutional." 

The writ petition submitted in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution aims to stop the Central Government from censoring the BBC documentary and to invalidate any directives that obstruct online access to it both directly and indirectly. N Ram and Prashant Bhushan also want Twitter to restore their tweets that shared links to the documentary after Twitter removed them on the instructions of the Centre.

One of the main claims made in the petition is that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution's guarantee of citizens' freedom of speech and expression also encompasses their "right to receive and distribute information." 

"All citizens, including the press, have the fundamental right to view, form an informed opinion, critique, report on, and lawfully circulate the contents of the documentary as right to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the right to receive and disseminate information," the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Every Person reads. 

According to the argument, the Center's decision violates the following rights:
a. the press freedom, as exemplified by the journalists who created and appear in the contested documentary; 

b. the exercise of free speech by different Indian citizens who appeared in the contested documentary and wished to express their opinions on the occasions relating to a particular period in Indian history; 

c. the exercise of the rights to free speech and to information by a number of Indian citizens, including the petitioners, who want to watch the contested documentary and spark discussions and debates about it on social media.

The petitioners raise concerns about the Centre's use of its emergency powers under the IT Rules 2021, emphasising that "criticism of the Government or its policies does not equivalent to breaching the sovereignty and integrity." 

The petitioners cite the views made by Justice DY Chandrachud in this regard

"In a democratic society every citizen has a right to speak as indeed, the right to know....Nothing can be as destructive of the social fabric in a democratic society than the attempt of those who govern to prevent access to information to those whose security depends upon the preservation of order. An environment in which human rights are respected is nurtured by a vibrant flow of information and avenues for a critical assessment of governance", In the decision that overturned the CBFC's opposition to the film about the Gujarat riots, Justice Chandrachud wrote. 

The petitioners contend that there is no reason to restrict their right to freedom of speech and expression, even if the authorities find the documentary's substance and its reception and discussion to be objectionable. 

Despite the possibility that the documentary's material criticises the actions of a number of people now serving in positions of power within the Central Government, that content is protected by Article 19(1)(a).

The writ petition submitted in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution aims to stop the Central Government from censoring the BBC documentary and to invalidate any directives that obstruct online access to it both directly and indirectly. N Ram and Prashant Bhushan also want Twitter to restore their tweets that shared links to the documentary after Twitter removed them on the instructions of the Centre. 

The petitioners raise concerns about the Centre's use of its emergency powers under the IT Rules 2021, emphasising that "criticism of the Government or its policies does not equivalent to breaching the sovereignty and integrity."

Regarding this, the petitioners cite Justice DY Chandrachud's comments made while serving as a Bombay High Court judge and reversing a ban on the film "Chand Bhuj Gaya," which was produced against the backdrop of the violence in Gujarat.

"In a democratic society every citizen has a right to speak as indeed, the right to know....Nothing can be as destructive of the social fabric in a democratic society than the attempt of those who govern to prevent access to information to those whose security depends upon the preservation of order. An environment in which human rights are respected is nurtured by a vibrant flow of information and avenues for a critical assessment of governance", Justice Chandrachud wrote in the judgment which discarded the CBFC objection to the the film on Gujarat riots.

The petitioners assert that "it is their 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 petitioners note that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has instructed Twitter and YouTube to take down the documentary's links by using its emergency authority under Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Rules 2021). The Ministry's directions, though, have not yet been made public. The BBC World documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been blocked on YouTube and Twitter, according to a tweet from Kanchan Gupta, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. The justifications given for using the emergency powers are not hidden from the public because the actual order has not yet been made public.

Both the IT Act's legislative provisions and the people' fundamental rights have been gravely violated by this. According to Section 69(A) of the IT Act, the blocking order must be in writing and include a statement of the reasons why it was issued. In this instance, neither the order nor the reasons are known to the general public.

"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", the petition states.

"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", the petition states.

On Monday, Senior Attorney Chander Uday Singh raised the issue for an urgent hearing before the Chief Justice of India. The issue will be listed, CJI agreed. 

Rahul Gupta, Suroor Mandar, Cheryl D'souza, and Varun Thomas Mathews prepared the petition, which was submitted through Prateek Chadha.