SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1622

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Jatinderpal Singh, Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Govind Jee, T. Sudhakar, O. Kuttan, Rajeev K. Panday, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advocates
For the Respondents:Yashank Adhyaru), Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, D.L. Chidananda, B.K. Prasad, Advocates, A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, G.S. Makker, Advpcates, Anup J. Bhambhani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Ipsita Behura, Advocates, Mohit D. Ram), Ms. Monisha Handa, K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Nayyar, N. Sai, Ms. Smriti Shah, Divyanshu Rai, Nitin Sharma, Advocates, Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, manu Srinath, Advocates, Abhishek Malhotra, Ms. Aahna Mehrotra, Ms. Liz Mathew, Rijul Taneja, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates

ORDER :

WP(C)No.387/2000 :

On the cause of action, which arises for consideration in this bunch of cases, the petitioner in the first instance filed Writ Petition (C)No.387/2000. Thereafter some other petitions were also filed. The factual and legal position depicted in the original writ petition and in the other connected writ petitions, we are informed, stand incorporated and upgraded in Writ Petition (C) No.1024 of 2013. In view of the above, Writ Petition (C) No.387/2000 and the other connected writ petitions referred to above are hereby disposed of summarily.

2. We take up Writ petition (C) No.1024/2013 for consideration, on merits.

WP(C) No. 1024/2013 :

3. The primary issue, which arises for consideration in the instant case, is with reference to the introduction of a complaint redressal mechanism. Such a mechanism is sought in respect of complaints made against television and radio programmes. Illustratively, our attention has been drawn to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and to the rules framed there under, namely, Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. We may illustratively refer to Rule 6, which is extracted hereunder :

"6. Programme Code. - (1) No program







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top