Two women have moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the controversial Sudarshan TV case, alleging that there is a parallel between the current state of the electronic media in India and Nazi Germany..One of the applicants, Sangeeta Tyagi, is the wife of Congress Spokesperson Rajiv Tyagi, who recently suffered a heart attack and succumbed to it shortly after appearing on a heated TV debate. The other applicant, Dr. Kota Neelima, is an author, researcher and political scientist who has also worked as a journalist and editor. She is also the wife of Congress Spokesperson, Pawan Khera..The pending petition before the Supreme Court touches upon the grave concern of the hate speech with respect to the Muslim community. The show titled 'Bindaas Bol' alleges the "infiltration" of Muslim officers in the Civil Services, terming the same as "UPSC Jihad"..If we issue an injunction then should it be a blanket injunction? Supreme Court asks in Sudarshan TV matter.The case of the applicants is that this show unequivocally falls within the definition of hate speech. It also seeks to highlight the larger problems currently plaguing the Indian electronic media. It is said in the application, ."[T]his broadcast, by the TV Anchor Shri Suresh Chavhanke is emblematic of a larger, insidious malady that have infected the electronic media of our Country i.e. the propensity of TV Anchors to shamelessly indulge in “Hate Speeches” via the medium of so called TV Debates on Prime Time.".To curb and quell this "menace" spread by TV news channels in their debates and primetime shows, the applicants are praying for the Apex Court to pass such directions and orders that may contain the same till legislation is brought in to regulate such content..The application states that while programs anchored by various primetime anchors squarely fall into the definition of "hate speech", the existing regulatory framework has not been successful in disciplining or penalising those anchors responsible for it..The applicants have submitted data analysis of shows anchored by four prominent news anchors who allegedly indulge in spreading hate through their programs. It is stated,."The Applicants most respectfully urge this Hon’ble Court that any corrective and penal direction that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass, should apply to all TV Anchors who indulge/peddle in “Hate Speeches” and not merely to the 4 TV Anchors named herein, in the interest of equal treatment and fair play.".The application also criticised the format and the manner in which these TV debates are conducted. Practices like toeing the government's line, blanket labelling of anti-establishment voices as "anti nationals", not providing adequate air time to opposing views, and "loud, voluble, loquacious and aggressive" conduct of the anchors are called out by the applicants..To ensure that TV channels do not indulge in divisive and undemocratic forms of debates, the applicants have also suggested setting up of a committee to govern and regulate the functioning of these debates. This committee, according to the recommendations, would have the powers to conduct rating and analysis and lay down norms based on the findings of such ratings, among other things.The committee shall also be empowered to regulate the number of debates to be conducted, disclosure of credentials of panelists, et al..The application is filed through Advocate Sunil Fernandes..The hearing in the Sudarshan TV case has taken place for six days, and will continue to be heard by the three-Judge Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud on Friday, September 25.