Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/07/1988
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
OJHA, N.D. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1642 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 486
1988 SCC (3) 410 JT 1988 (3) 66
1988 SCALE (2)34
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(2)-- Right of citizen to exhibit films on T. V.-- Subject
to compliance of conditions imposed by Doordarshan-Can be
curtailed only under Art. 19(2).
Article 226 Public Interest Petition against exhibition
of a TV serial-Alleging that it was likely to spread false
or blind beliefs and superstitions among people-Violation of
any statutory or contractual right not alleged-Whether High
Court was justified in issuing interim injunction order?
HEADNOTE:
The T.V. Serial ’Honi-Anhoni’ was being telecast by
Doordarshan on every Thursday between 9.00 P.M. and 9.30
P.M.
A writ petition was filed by the Respondents stating
that the telecast was not in public interest as it had the
effect of confirming blind faiths, superstitious beliefs in
stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition etc. and of
spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind
beliefs. The High Court issued an interim order of
injunction not to telecast and show episodes 12 and 13 of
the serial.
Aggrieved by the interim order, the appellant, producer
of the said serial, had come on appeal by special leave.
This Court, while granting special leave stayed the
operation of the interim order passed by the High Court.
The appellant contended that the said serial and in
particular episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise
superstitious beliefs but on the contrary criticised and
condemned superstition and blind faith, and at the end of
both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific
explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein
and considered by people as supernatural phenomenon. It was
also submitted that the viewers were told that they should
search for scientific reason whenever any unusual occurrence
takes place.
Allowing the appeal,
487
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
^
HELD:1. Freedom of expression is a preferred right
which is always very zealously guarded by this Court. It can
no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit
films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions
to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the
fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which can be
curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in
clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The
right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his
views through any other media such as newspaper, magazines,
advertisement hoardings etc. subject to the terms and
conditions of the owners of the media. [491B; 490C-E]
2. The High Court was in error in the present case in
issuing the interim order of injunction which is set aside.
[492B]
3.1 The objection to the exhibition of the film was
that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs amongst
the members of the public. The Respondents had not asserted
any right conferred on them by any statute or acquired by
them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order
of temporary injunction. [491C-D]
3.2 As alleged by the Respondents, if all the episodes
in the serial were offensive they could have approached the
High Court as early as possible within the first two or
three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the
serial. But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th
episode of the serial was over and then filed the petition.
They had not produced any material apart from their own
statements to show that the exhibition of the serial was
prima facie prejudicial to the community. [491E-G]
3.3 The High Court overlooked that the issue of an
order of interim injunction in this case could infringe a
fundamental right of the producer of the serial. In the
absence of any prima facie evidence of grave prejudice that
was likely to be caused to the public generally by the
exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue
an order of temporary injunction. The exhibition of the
serial in question was not likely to endanger public
morality. In the circumstances of the case the balance of
convenience lay in favour of the rejection of the prayer for
interim injunction. [491G-H; 492A]
[This Court reserved its opinion on the question
whether a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a
private broadcasting station, or television centre, to be
decided in an appropriate case.] [490E]
488
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1523 of
1988.
From the Judgment and order dated 13.4.1988 of the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 479 of 1988.
K.K. Venugopal, A.N. Haksar, S. Vazifdar, Raian
Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Hardeep S.. Anand
for the Appellant.
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran,
S.C. Birala and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed
against an interim order of injunction issued by the High
Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench on 13th April, 1988
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
directing the three respondents; (I) Union of India, (2)
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Parliament House,
New Delhi and (3) State of Maharashtra, not to telecast and
show episodes 12 and 13 of a serial entitled ’Honi-Anhoni’
pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 479 of 1988 filed by
Respondent No. 1, Lokvidayan Sanghatana, a registered social
organisation of Pune having its branch at Aurangabad and
Respondent No. 2 Mahila Sangharsha Samiti, Aurangabad
represented by one of its members Smt. Anagna Patil. The
writ petition was in the nature of a public interest
litigation. The prayer in the writ petition was that the
respondents should be directed not to telecast the serial as
such telecasting was not in the public interest.
The serial ’Honi-Anhoni’ was being telecast by the
Doordarshan, which was run by the Union of India, on every
Thursday between 9 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. The 12th episode of
the said serial was to be telecast on 14th April, 1988 and
the 13th episode was to be telecast on 21st April, 1988. By
virtue of the interim order passed on 13th April, 1988.
episode No. 12 could not be telecast on 14th April, 1988.
Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court the
appellant, Odyssey Communication Pvt. Ltd., which was the
producer of the serial ’Honi-Anhoni’ filed the special leave
petition before this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India out of which this appeal arises. The
said petition came up before this Court for consideration on
April 2 1, 1988. After hearing the learned counsel for the
appellant this Court granted special leave to prefer an
appeal against
489
the order passed by the High Court and also stayed the
operation of the interim order dated 13th April, 1988 passed
by the High Court until further orders and permitted the
Doordarshan to telecast the serial in question. In view of
the above order the 12th episode of the serial was telecast
on the 21st of April, 1988. The appeal was heard on the 28th
of April, 1988 and this Court reserved judgment on the
appeal. At the end of the hearing of the appeal on 28th
April, 1988 the Court expressed that it would set aside the
order passed by the High Court against which the appeal had
been filed and would give reasons in the course of its
judgment. Since the order of stay passed by the Court was
allowed to remain in force the 13th episode, which was the
last episode of the serial was telecast on the 28th April,
1988.
The grounds mentioned in the writ petition in support
of the prayer made in it were that in each and every episode
telecast in the serial an obscure and mysterious atmosphere
was being created due to the way of the presentation of the
episodes and that it had created fear in the minds of the
common viewers and especially of children as the serial had
the effect of confirming blinds faiths, superstitious
beliefs in stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition etc. and
of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind
beliefs. It was further contended that it was the duty of
the State not to encourage blind beliefs amongst the public
by telecasting such episodes. It was on the basis of these
grounds the High Court was requested to grant the interim
order of injunction. The appellant was the producer of the
said serial, yet the appellant was not made a party to the
writ petition. But on its application the appellant was
impleaded as a party on 12.4.1988. On 13.4.1988 the High
Court passed the impugned order of temporary injunction. The
appellant rushed to this Court immediately thereafter with
the above said special leave petition. The appellant has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
stated before us that the said serial and in particular
episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious beliefs
but on the contrary criticised and condemned superstition
and blind faith as was ex facie apparent from the scripts of
episodes 12 and 13 produced before this Court. It is stated
that at the end of both the episodes a doctor and a
professor gave a scientific explanation for the unusual
occurrences portrayed therein and considered by people as
supernatural phenomena. It is alleged that in the 13th
episode after a scientific explanation of what had taken
place the viewers were told as follows:
"All those who without thinking spread blind
faith ought to feel ashamed of themselves. We
request all of you that whenever any unusual
occurrencces takes place or a
490
seemingly imporbable event occurs, before
believing in it, to reflect as to whether there is
a scientific reason for it or is it purely
psychological by nature. If all of us exercise
such caution we believe that the malady of blind
faith will soon be eradicated by our society."
The appellant further pleaded that the High Court was
in error in issuing the order of injunction without giving a
reasonable opportunity to it (the producer), which was
likely to be affected by the order, to explain that the writ
petitioners had no right to move the Court in the
circumstances of the case.
It can no longer be disputed that the right of a
citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the
terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a
part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India which can be curtailed only under circumstances which
are set out in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution
of India. The right is similar to the right of a citizen to
publish his views through any other media such as
newspapers, magazines, advertisement hoardings etc. subject
to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media. We
hasten to add that what we have observed here does not mean
that a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a
private boardcasting station, or television center. On this
question we reserve our opinion. It has to be decided in an
appropriate case. The relevant part of Article 19 of the
Constitution reads thus:
"19. Protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.-(1) All citizens shall
have the right-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
....................................
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1)
shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far
as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-
clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or moral
491
ity, or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
................................................."
Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is
always very zealously guarded by this Court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
It was not the case of the petitioners in the Writ
Petition that the exhibition of serial ’Honi-Anhoni’ was in
contravention of any specific law or direction issued by the
Government. They had not alleged that the Doordarshan had
shown any undue favour to the appellant and the sponsoring
institutions resulting in any financial loss to the public
exchequer. The objection to the exhibition of the film had,
however, been raised by them on the basis that it was likely
to spread false or blind beliefs amongst the members of the
public. They had not asserted any right conferred on them by
any statute or acquired by them under a contract which
entitled them to secure an order of temporary injunction
against which this appeal is filed. The appellant had denied
that the exhibition of the serial was likely to affect
prejudicially the well-being of the people. The Union of
India and the Doordarshan have pleaded that the serial was
being telecast after following the prescribed procedure and
taking necessary precaution. In such a situation, the High
Court should not have immediately proceeded to pass the
interim orde of injunction. It was no doubt true that the
12th episode was to be telecast on 14th April, 1988 and the
13th episode was to be telecast on 21st April, 1988. If the
petitioners in the writ petition had felt, as they had
alleged in the course of the petition, that all the episodes
in the serial were offensive they could have approached the
High Court as early as possible within the first two or
three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the
serial. But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th
episode of the serial was over and filed the petition only
in the second week of April, 1988. They had not produced any
material apart from their own statements to show that the
exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the
community. The High Court overlooked that the issue of an
order of interim injunction in this case would infringe a
fundamental right of the producer of the serial. In the
absence of any prima facie evidence of grave prejudice that
was likely to be caused to the public generally by the
exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue
an order of temporary injunction. We are not satisfied that
the exhibition of the serial in question was likely to
endanger public morality. In the circumstances of the case
the balance of convenience lay in favour of
492
the rejection of the prayer for interim injunction. What we
have stated here is sufficient to dispose of this appeal.
The other questions of law which may arise in a case of this
nature will have to be dealt with in an appropriate case. We
express no opinion on those questions in this case. We are,
however, of the opinion that the High Court was in error in
the present case in issuing the interim order of injunction
against which this appeal is filed. We, therefore, allow
this appeal and set aside the interim order of injunction
passed by the High Court on the 13th of April, 1988. There
is, however, no order as to costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
493