Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2902/2008
th
% Date of Decision: 19 May, 2008
Dina Nath Batra & Others …..Petitioners
Through: Ms.Monika Arora, Advocate
Versus
University of Delhi and others …Respondents
Through: Mr.Arvind Nigam with
Mr.Amit Bansal and
Ms.Manisha Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest ?
ORDER
19.05.2008
1. This petition, purporting to raise an issue in public interest,
assails an article by the renowned poet, translator, linguist and an
internationally acclaimed scholar A.K. Ramanujan titled “ Three
Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on
Translation ”. Ramanujan, after a brilliant academic career in India,
got his PhD in linguistics in 1963 from Indiana University in the U.S. He
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 1 of 6
taught in several universities in that country till his death in July, 1993.
A shortened version of the article first appeared in 1991 in a book titled
Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in
South Asia edited by Paula Richman and published by the University
of California Berkeley Press. The full version was also published in
India in 1999 by the Oxford University Press in a book titled The
Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan edited by Vinay Dharwadker.
The article, therefore, has been in the public domain for over 17 years.
2. The immediate provocation for this petition brought forth by
eight petitioners, some of whom are academics themselves, is that this
article was included in the list of readings for the concurrent course on
'Ancient Indian Culture' in the BA (Honours) programme offered in
several colleges affiliated to the University of Delhi from July, 2006
onwards. It appears that this and certain other articles which were also
listed in the readings in the published curriculum were separately
photocopied and compiled in a spiral bound volume, which was
purchased by petitioner No.1 from Arun Thesis Typing Centre,
respondent No.4, a photocopying shop operating in the vicinity of the
University of Delhi, respondent No.1. The name of Dr.Upender Singh, a
Professor in the Department of History, arrayed as respondent No.3
was found typed on the cover page of this spiral bound volume.
Although this volume was neither a 'book', nor was it authored by
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 2 of 6
Dr.Upender Singh, it appears to have led to a series of protests
spearheaded by the Shiksha Bachao Andolan of which petitioner No.1
claims to be the convener. The bone of contention was that the article
denigrated the Ramayana and hurt the religious sentiments of the
Hindus. The protests were joined in by certain other political social and
religious groups. It appears from the copies of the press clippings
enclosed with the petition that the print media also proceeded on the
mistaken notion that this was a book published by respondent No.1
authored by respondent No.3. A criminal complaint also stated to have
been filed by the petitioners.
3. On January 23, 2008 in response to a letter received from
Dr.K.C. Gupta, convener of the Gyan Parishad in Meerut, seeking
deletion of the said article from the list of readings for the course
mentioned hereinabove, the University of Delhi informed him as under:
“Petitioner No.1 sent a legal notice to respondent
No.1 university on January 28, 2008 asking it to
“immediately withdraw the book” from the “course
curriculum of BA (Hons) of IInd year of University of
Delhi”and to tender an unconditional written apology
“to the millions of Hindus all over the world for
having outraged their religious feelings by insulting
their religion”. In reply to this notice, respondent
No.1 through its counsel set the facts straight that
neither had respondent No.1 published any book nor
was it authored or compiled by respondent No.3.
Pointing out that there were other pieces including
Robert T.Goldman's The Ramayana of Valmiki: an
epic of ancient India (an authoritative recent
English translation of the epic) which formed part of
the recommended readings for the course, it was
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 3 of 6
reiterated that “the aim of the course in question is
to teach university students to be able to analyse a
variety of source material academically, analytically
and without embarrassment or denigration.”
Dissatisfied with the response the petitioners have approached this
Court.
4. The petition extensively quotes portions of the aforementioned
article by Ramanujan which according to the petitioners are
objectionable and therefore ought not to be included in the list of
recommended readings. It is claimed that the author has a tendency
of picking negative aspects of different versions of Ramayana with
malicious intention of defaming and denigrating central characters in
the epic. It is further claimed that the article is violative of various
provisions of the Constitution of India and constitutes an offence under
the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in the petition is that this Court
should direct respondent No.1 university “to remove the controversial
article” from the B.A. Hons. II year History course with immediate
effect.
5. There are several difficulties in entertaining this petition.
Primarily they revolve around the legitimacy of the Court's intervention
in matters of this nature as well as the competence of the Court to
adjudicate issues that do not admit of judicially manageable standards.
This petition cannot be viewed as a suit for defamation or a criminal
complaint for a similar offence. A petition under Article 226 of the
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 4 of 6
Constitution is a public law remedy where the jurisdiction and the
scope of the powers of High Court are fairly well defined. The very
nature of these proceedings disables the Court from forming an opinion
that a view expressed by an academic or a scholar in an article, like
the one with which the petition is concerned is tenable or not. In the
considered view of this Court it should not lend itself to this exercise at
the instance of a section of the population which might have strong
views on such issues. The assurance of open scholarly and creative
enterprise lies at the heart of the research and teaching mission of
modern higher education in a democratic society. Academic freedom
is fundamental to the life of the university. What should be included in
the list of readings for a course curriculum in a university should be left
to academics and experts. Problems that might arise out of the
inclusion of any list of readings should also be best left to the decisions
of such experts.
6. The other issue, of course, is one of competence of this Court to
decide whether or not the article in question is objectionable. A civil or
a criminal Court before whom such challenge may be laid would have
the assistance of expert evidence in order to determine the issue. Such
an exercise is plainly not possible in a petition under Article 226.
Absent such evidence of experts, it would be hazardous for the Court
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 5 of 6
to take upon itself the task of determining whether the views
expressed by an author in an article are objectionable.
7. Therefore, on both counts of legitimacy and competence this
Court is disinclined to entertain this petition.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR, J
May 19, 2008
“ak/dn/nm”
WP(C) No.2902/2008 page 6 of 6