Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed a petition that sought a directive to the Union Government and Prasar Bharati to establish a 24-hour Sindhi language Doordarshan TV channel. The petition, filed by Sindhi Sangat, aimed to preserve and promote the language and cultural heritage of the Sindhi community, a recognized linguistic minority under the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners invoked Article 29, which safeguards the rights of linguistic minorities, to support their claim. However, the Court held that Article 29 does not grant the right to demand a separate language channel as a means of preserving a language. The petition was previously rejected by both a single bench and a division bench of the Delhi High Court.
Petitioner’s Argument:
The petitioner, Sindhi Sangat, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, argued that the Sindhi language and culture are at risk of extinction due to the lack of dedicated public broadcasting platforms. They contended that starting a 24-hour Sindhi language channel on Doordarshan is essential for the preservation of the language, which has no territorial home state, unlike other regional languages. Jaising emphasized that Sindhi is recognized as an official language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, but without a state of its own, it requires special attention from the government to ensure its survival.
The petitioner submitted that Sindhi programs currently aired on Doordarshan channels such as DD Girnar, DD Sahyadri, and DD Rajasthan were insufficient to meet the needs of the widely dispersed Sindhi population, which primarily resides in urban and semi-urban areas across India. They argued that the Doordarshan policy, which links the broadcasting of language programs to the principal language spoken in the region where the station is located, was unreasonable. Given that the Sindhi community is spread across different parts of India, they do not have the benefit of state-supported language programming like other linguistic communities.
Jaising questioned the sustainability argument put forward by the government, highlighting the respondent’s stand that a dedicated channel for a population of around 26 lakhs would require an annual operating cost of approximately Rs. 20 crores. She argued that this expense was minimal compared to the cultural significance of preserving a linguistic heritage. Moreover, the Sindhi community’s diaspora status and lack of territoriality made the straightjacket policy of linking language channels to regional populations arbitrary and unreasonable under the ‘Wednesbury principles’ of reasonableness.
The petitioner further contended that public broadcasting is one of the most effective means of preserving and promoting a language. They argued that Prasar Bharati, as a public service broadcaster, has a constitutional obligation to promote and protect linguistic diversity under Article 29. Jaising also pointed out that other language communities, especially those with territorial states, enjoy dedicated broadcasting channels, and the same should be extended to Sindhi to avoid discrimination.
Respondent’s Argument:
The Union Government and Prasar Bharati, represented by their counsel, opposed the petition, asserting that it was not feasible or sustainable to establish a separate 24-hour Sindhi language channel. The respondents highlighted that Sindhi language programs were already being aired on three regional Doordarshan channels—DD Girnar, DD Sahyadri, and DD Rajasthan—covering areas with a significant Sindhi-speaking population. They argued that creating a new channel for a relatively small population of approximately 26 lakhs was financially unviable, given the estimated running cost of Rs. 20 crores per year.
The respondents also emphasized that the government follows a policy of territoriality in its broadcasting decisions. According to this policy, language programs are produced and aired based on the primary language spoken in the region where the Doordarshan station is located. Since the Sindhi community is scattered across various parts of India and does not have a state of its own, it would be difficult to justify a separate channel for a language that is not regionally dominant.
Further, the respondents argued that the petitioner’s claim under Article 29 of the Constitution does not extend to a right to demand a dedicated TV channel for any particular language. They contended that Article 29 guarantees the right to preserve language, culture, and script, but it does not obligate the state to create specific institutions or channels for the promotion of these rights. The government maintained that the current broadcasting of Sindhi programs on existing channels sufficiently meets the needs of the community.
The High Court, in both the single bench and division bench rulings, had accepted the respondent’s argument that the petition’s demand was a policy matter and not a constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court was asked to respect these findings and dismiss the petition as there was no legal basis for the demand to establish a separate channel.
Court’s Judgement:
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgment, observed that Article 29 of the Constitution does not grant a linguistic minority the right to demand the establishment of a separate television channel for their language. The Court emphasized that the constitutional provision for preserving language, culture, and script under Article 29 does not automatically translate into an absolute or indefeasible right to require the state to create specific resources such as a 24-hour channel.
The Court referred to the petitioner’s previous case in the Delhi High Court, noting that the High Court had correctly ruled that issuing a mandamus (court order) for the creation of a Sindhi language channel would interfere with the policy decisions of the executive. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning, stating that decisions about the allocation of public resources, including the creation of language channels, fall within the purview of policy-making, which is not typically subject to judicial review unless there is clear arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The bench, in its order, pointed out that the petitioner had not challenged Doordarshan’s policy of linking language channels to territoriality during the proceedings before the High Court. The CJI remarked that the relief sought by the petitioner in the lower courts was limited to the establishment of a separate channel, and the issue of questioning the policy had not been raised previously. Hence, introducing new arguments at this stage would not be appropriate.
The Court also took note of the government’s submission regarding the significant financial burden of starting and running a separate channel for a relatively small population. The bench acknowledged that Rs. 20 crores per year, while not an exorbitant sum, is still a substantial cost to the public exchequer, and public broadcasting is not the only means of preserving a language.
The Court highlighted that there are alternative methods for preserving linguistic and cultural heritage, such as promoting language education, supporting cultural institutions, and raising public awareness through various platforms. While public broadcasting can play an important role in preserving languages, especially for rural communities, the Court suggested that other forms of media and outreach, particularly for urban and semi-urban communities like the Sindhis, might be more effective. The bench noted that the Sindhi community is predominantly engaged in business and resides in urban areas, making other forms of cultural promotion potentially more suitable than a dedicated television channel.
In response to the petitioner’s invocation of the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness, the Court found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious decision-making by the respondents. The bench reiterated that judicial interference in policy matters is limited to cases where there is clear evidence of unreasonableness or violation of constitutional rights. In this case, the Court found that the government’s policy was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
CJI Chandrachud remarked that while the concerns of the Sindhi community regarding the preservation of their language were understandable, the government is not constitutionally obligated to create specific institutions or channels for each linguistic minority. The Court expressed sympathy for the Sindhi community’s unique situation as a displaced and scattered group without a territorial home state but maintained that Article 29 does not confer a right to demand specific state actions such as the creation of a dedicated TV channel.
The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, clarifying that its decision was limited to the specific prayer raised and that the dismissal should not be construed as a broader statement on the preservation of linguistic heritage. The judgment concluded that while the state has a role in protecting linguistic diversity, it is not bound by constitutional mandates to fulfill every specific demand related to language preservation.