The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking an apology from Aaj Tak and its senior anchor Anjana Om Kashyap for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Valmiki community.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry questioned the basis of the PIL which said the television channel last year broadcast a show mentioning that Valmiki was a dacoit.
“It is part of mythology. You will not find any trace of it [in history]. What is this petition about? What is the ground for hurting [sentiments]? Are you serious about this petition… you are driving yourself to costs. You are basing your petition on a figment of imagination,” the Court remarked.
Considering the adverse observations, the counsel representing the petitioner withdrew the plea.
“This petitioner stands dismissed as withdrawn,” the Court ordered.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner earlier argued that videos should be removed from the internet because there is no such historical fact that Valmiki was a dacoit.
However, the Court asked whether Valmiki’s story was part of history or mythology. When the counsel said mythology, the Court said he cannot get any proof for mythology.
“How do you say what they said on the television is correct or not when you yourself admit it is not part of history? It is part of mythology,” Chief Justice Nagu asked.
In response, the counsel said the media can speak about Valmiki's transformation but in a different manner.
“They should say that it is a traditional belief. Straight away they are saying Bhagwan Valmiki ji was so and so…,” he added.
However, the Court said that everyone has heard and studied that Valmiki had transformed into a good man.
“From the devil, he became a good man. That is what all of us have heard. That is something good on his part that he changed for the better. Why are you so disturbed,” the bench said.
“You [community members] should be proud of him that he improved, if he [Valmiki] existed,” it added.
The petition was ultimately withdrawn.
The Court was inclined to impose costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner but did not do so on a request made by the counsel.