Recently, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition requesting that Doordarshan establish a dedicated 24x7 channel for the Sindhi language.

The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud addressed the petitioner, questioning whether citizens could demand the creation of a separate channel solely for language preservation.

"There can be other means to preserve a language... The Sindhis are an urban community," he noted.

The court clarified that no individual could assert the right to compel the establishment of a channel in the name of fundamental rights.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioners, the Sindhi Sangat, argued that the government's assertion regarding the financial constraints associated with launching a new channel should not impede the preservation of the language.

"I am espousing a public cause, not an individual cause. This falls under Article 29," Jaising contended, emphasizing the significance of safeguarding a language without a state, similar to Parsi. She added, "If there had been a state called Sindh, there would have been a channel. This language is included in the Eighth Schedule; don't link your policy with territoriality."

In reviewing the government's response, which indicated that establishing a separate channel would require an investment of around ₹20 crores, Jaising remarked, "Which is nothing for the preservation of a language." However, CJI Chandrachud ultimately dismissed the petition, reiterating, "This channel is not the only mode to preserve the language."

Case Title: Sindhi Sangat vs. Union of India and Anothe