An intervention application has been filed in the Supreme Court by OpIndia.com, Indic Collective Trust and the UpWord Foundation stating that the standards adhered to by Sudarshan TV while telecasting the UPSC Jihad series was in consonance with "contemporary standard of religious reporting" prevalent over decades. .The petition drawn by Advocate J Sai Deepak and filed by Advocate Suvidutt MS states that there has been no action in the past against other instances media reportage 'fanning communal passions.'.On this aspect, a report on the subject by OpIndia titled "A Study on Contemporary Standards in Religious Reporting by Mass Media” has also been placed by the applicants before the Court..The applicants add that the report has found 100 instances which should have been actioned against like how the Court had restrained Sudarshan TV from airing its show in the Court's interim order. .As such, it is stated,"Conversely, it would be fair to presume that the impugned content is merely consistent with the standards set by mass media over the decades on religious reporting.".Even after stay, Sudarshan TV aired show with hate speech, caustically critical comments against SC: Petitioner in UPSC Jihad case."That this is the contemporary standard of religious reporting is evident from the fact that no authority has initiated any legal proceeding against any of these entities or authors for misrepresentation or fanning communal passions or demonising Indic communities and their ways of life which are clearly the subject of their reportage. Such being the case, the fifth Respondent (Sudarshan TV) would be justified in assuming that it was merely playing by the rules of reportage."reads the IA further..The intervenors state that law on free speech is and must remain impervious to sentiments being affected or hurt on the basis of the numerical strength of a particular community, "failing which the law would be patently communal and defeat the very object of fundamental freedoms of free speech and expression.".Out of 29 cr, 1 cr received from foreign links, Sudarshan TV cherry-picking facts: Zakat Foundation Of India files intervention application.Some of the questions raised by the intervenors for the Court's consideration are:.Is a Constitutional Court, either under Articles 226 or 32, cloaked with the necessary jurisdiction to directly restrain content during the pendency of an examination by the appropriate State authority on the legality of the content under applicable laws?Assuming the appropriate State authority finds nothing objectionable with the content under the applicable law, does any statute or the Constitution itself permit Constitutional Courts to step into the shoes of the State to restrain the broadcast and consumption of such content?Given that the Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental right of the public to consume content, can a Constitutional Court fetter the broadcast of such content without considering the public’s right to consume?Is it constitutionally permissible for Constitutional Courts to judicially legislate a new species of impermissible speech, namely “Hate Speech”?What is the jurisprudence on “Hate Speech” in India and in other jurisdictions?Independent of the above questions and without prejudice to them, would it be fair and reasonable to lay down the law on hate speech based on a particular instance which forms the basis of the Writ Petition without considering the contemporary landscape on exercise of free speech which sheds light on the standards observed in current discourse?.Issue is that you implicate a whole community as taking over the civil services, Supreme Court to Sudarshan TV in "UPSC Jihad" matter.Since the Court has hinted that it would like to set out a framework for regulating the electronic media, the intervenors maintain that "neither morals nor laws can or must be laid down in vacuum. After all, they do not operate in vacuum and must, therefore, be informed by experience.".The plea further avers that power to regulate content is the exclusive realm of the State. It is contended that "Constitutional Courts, do not form part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions starting from the verdict of a nine-Judge Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra.".Since the top Court is also seized of petitions seeking to lay down an authoritative ruling on hate speech, the intervenors aver that: “'Hate speech' without clear metes and bounds could end up strengthening the hands of those who wish to prevent the truth from emerging or who wish to resist reform by alleging persecution and discrimination merely because certain facts are politically incorrect or do not fall within their worldview.".Ultimately, the intervenors assert that the area of hate speech is best left to the legislature to work on. .It is pointed out, inter alia, that the Supreme Court in Jafar Imam Naqvi vs Election Commission of India, has clarified that directions can be issued "only when there has been a total vacuum in law, i.e. complete absence of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of a basic human right.".The applicants add, "In the event of legal vacuum to deal with a particular situation, the Court may issue guidelines to provide absolution till such time as the Legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field. Therefore, directions can be issued only in a situation where the will of the elected legislature has not yet been expressed.".The Court is due to hear the plea against the broadcast of Sudarshan TV's UPSC Jihad show this afternoon.