Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.
Indira Jaising.... Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1986, decided on 21-6-1988.
Advocates appeared :
Anand Grover with Aditya Chitale, for petitioner.
G.K. Nilkanth, for respondents.
When various interviews taken for a programme are edited, it is necessary to ensure that in the process of editing, the views expressed are correctly conveved on the programme which is talecast. A portion of the interview may, at times, have to be deleted while editing the programme. But it the process of such deletion there should not be any gross distoration or misrepresentation of what had been said. Nor should important points raised by completely omitted.
In the present case a portion of the interview which expressed views unplatable to Doordarshan was deleted. The deleted portion was directly relevant to the subject of the programme. The respondents in their correspondence, have admitted that initially it was their intention to include in this programme views of various persons on personal laws. Hence the opinion expressed was relevant. Why was it deleted?
The respondents in their correspondence have given two reasons: (1) Paucity of time and (2) the subject was being debated in Parliament. The second reason clearly indicates the reluctance of Doordarshan authorities to telecast opinions on a controversial Bill then being debated in Parliament. The deletion, therefore, was in effect, by way of censorship. Paucity of time cannot justify a wholesale omission of the subject.
Under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution all citizens have a right to freedom of speech and expression. This right protects freedom of speech on television as much as anywhere else. It was contended by Mr. Nilkanth, learned Advocate for the respondents that there is no right of free speech on T.V. He said that Article 19 does not apply to television programmes. Mr. Nilkanth has not cited any authority of law in support of this somewhat alarming proposition. The right to freedom of speech and expression has been considered by our courts as including freedom of the press. The right equally covers freedom of other media. A citizen cannot enjoy freedom of speech and expression if he is not permitted to express his views freely through mass media even when he is invited to use these media. Freedom to propagate ones views is an important ingredient of the right of free speech. A citizen who is interviewed over television by invitation of the television authorities is entitled to express his or her views freely. Censorship or deliberate distortion of these views would violate Article 19. Any restriction of this right must be within the ambit of Article 19 (2) and by law.
2. In the last week of Feb., 1986 the petitioner was invited to give an interview on Television in a programme called "Sach Ki Parchaian" to be telecast over the national net-work. The topic which was to be discussed in this programme was "Laws relating to Women". The petitioner accepted the invitation. Her interview was recorded in the studio of the Bombay Doordarshan on 1st March, 1986. The petitioner was informed at the studios that she could speak on any aspect of laws relating to women. In the interview, the petitioner, apart from dealing with some aspects of laws pertaining to women, also commented on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 1986 which was then pending before Parliament. The bill had given rise to a major controversy in the country. The petitioner commented on the Bill and said that it was unconstitutional and violative of women's right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws. She also said that the Bill would deprive women of their rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case. She said that the Bill dealt severe blow to women's right to claim maintenance. Since the petitioner held strong views on the Bill she considered it not only her right but also her duty to express her firmly-held belief that the Bill was unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14 and 15.
3. The petitioner was interviewed for six minutes. Apart from the petitioner several other persons were also interviewed for this programme. These included the then Chief Justice of India as also Ved Marwah, Sheela Barse, Pandita Haskar and others. Women victims of harassment were also interviewed . All these Interviewed were collated and edited for the purpose of the programme.
4. On 3rd March, 1986 this programme was telecast. The petitioner was surprised to find that though her views on the aspects of laws relating to women were telecast her opinion on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill was completely deleted. It is the petitioner's case that her views on the Bill were censored by Television authorities because her views were against the views of the Ruling party.
5. The petitioner came to know about the deletion of her views on the Bill from the programme only when she saw the telecast on 3rd March, 1986. She sent a letter of protest dt. 6th March 1986 to Delhi Doordarshan. In the letter she pointed out that not allowing her to express her views on Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill 1986 was a clear imposition of censorship on her views, and she felt that she had been manipulated to suit the interests of the producers of the programme as also of Doordarshan.
6. The Deputy Director of Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi in his reply of 9/10th April, 1986 accepted that initially they had planned to include in the programme the views of various persons on personal laws. He, however, said that as the duration of the programme was exceeding its stipulated time and also because of the discussions going on in Parliament the portion pertaining to Muslim Personal Law was not included in that programme.
7. In his subsequent letter of 28th April, 1986 the Deputy Director, Doordarshan has told the petitioner that it will not be possible for them to telecast the views already expressed by the petitioner on the proposed Bill but they will get in touch with her if they plan any programme on the subject in future.
8. In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for a d
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
