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

1996 Supreme(Bom) 394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah, J.
Shri Anand Patwardhan.... Petitioner.
Versus
The Union of India and others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 767 of 1992, decided on 19-7-1996.
Advocates appeared :
P.A. Sebastian, for the petitioner.
L.S. Vyas, with R.C. Master, for the respondents.

Headnote:Article 19(1)(a) - Doordarshan-Refusal of to telecast documentary film produced and directed by well-known documentary film maker and it had not approval of Censor by granting U Certificate and won awards-It dealing with subject to violence and terrorism in punjab had strongly advocated communal harmony and was not against any religion-As there was no jurisdiction to reject film, its rejection would violate fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :----John Stuart Mill, a great thinker of 19th Century in his famous treatise "Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government" neatly explained the importance of free speech expression in these words :

"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

Indeed, freedom of speech and expression has now been accepted as a natural right which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, regarded as a basic human right. The words "freedom of speech and expression" appearing in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has been construed by the Supreme Court to include freedom to circulate one's view by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. Thus every citizen of this free country has the right to air his or her views through the printing and/or the electronic media subject to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The question arising in this petition whether the refusal of Doordarshan to telecast "In Memory of Friends", a documentary produced by the petitioner, violates his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression will have to be considered in the light of these established principles.

2.The petitioner is a well-known documentary film maker. The documentary films made by the petitioner in the past were acclaimed at national and international level. The petitioner has produced and directed the documentary film in question "In Memory of Friends" about the violence and terrorism in Punjab, about a group of Sikhs and Hindus, who at great personal risk were engaged in an attempt to recover the tolerance and communal harmony that once existed in Punjab. The memory of the legendary martyr Bhagat Singh plays a central role in the film. The film is a 60 minute documentary which was completed in January 1990. It was screened in the London Film Festival, 1990 as well as in the non-feature section of the Indian Panorama at the Madras International Film Festival early in 1991. It has been selected as the best investigative documentary for the year 1990 and given award by the Government of India. The jury which selected it as the best investigative documentary said that the film treated the subject of violence and terrorism with courage, honesty and lucidity, Besides, the said film has won the Silver Couch at the First Bombay International Festival of documentary and short films and special jury prize at Mannheim in Germany.

3.The petitioner submitted the film to the Doordarshan on 12th March, 1991 for screening on television. The Doordarshan chose not to reply to the petitioner. The petitioner was constrained to send a legal notice dated 29th April, 1991 in which he called upon Doordarshan to screen the film on T.V. In response to the said letter, Doordarshan sent reply to the petitioner dated 16th May, 1991 in which it was said that the copy of the film was not traceable. The petitioner delivered another copy of the film by hand on 17th July, 1991. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 3rd February, 1992, that the film was not found suitable for telecast over Doordarshan under national programmes.

4.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have unfairly and arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's film and deprived him of his right of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioner complains that the letter dated 3rd February, 1992 gives no reason why the said film is considered unfit for being telecast on Doordarshan. The petitioner submits that what happened in Punjab is of immen



























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 Back to top