Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah, J.
Shri Anand Patwardhan.... Petitioner.
Versus
The Union of India another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1958 of 1994, decided on 6-1-1997.
Advocates appeared :
P.A. Sebastian, for petitioner
L.S. Vyas with Ms. Shobha Joshi, for respondents.
who are phouledgeable-Petition was admitted despite objection of jurisdiction-Effect of exhibition of a film to be judged from the standards of reasonable strong minded firm and courageous man-Direction issued for the telecast of film.- The Supreme Court then proceeded to hold that heavy burden would lie on the authorities to justify restriction on the freedom envisaged by Article 19(1)(a). It was observed that our constitution recognises the need to place reasonable restrictions on grounds specified by Article 19(2) and Section 5-B of the Act on the exercise of the right of speech and expression. It is for this reason that the need for prior restraint recognised and out laws have assigned a specific role to the censors as such is the need in a rapidly changing societal structure, But since permissible restrictions, albeit reasonable, are all the same restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) such restrictions are bound to be viewed as anathema, in that, they are in the nature of curbs or limitation on the exercise of the right and are, therefore, bound to be viewed with suspicion, thereby throwing a heavy burden on the authorities that seek to impose them. The burden would, therefore, heavily lie on the authorities that seek to impose them to show that the restrictions are reasonable and permissible in law.
2.The petitioner is a well-known documentary film maker. The petitioner produced in 1991 a documentary film of ninety minutes duration called "Ram-Ke-Naam" (in the name of God). The film was granted "U" certificate by the Censor Board in 1992. The film deals with the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and various social and religious issues arising therefrom. The film was selected as the best investigative documentary for the year 1993 and given National Award by the Government of India. It was adjudged as the best documentary in the year 1992 by the jury of the Filmfare Award. It secured a best documentary award at Frie-bourg Switzerland in 1992 and Citizens Award at Yamagota, Japan in 1993 and Ecumenical Prize at Nyon, Switzerland. The film was selected as the only Indian documentary for screening in International Film Festivals such as International Film Festival at Berlin, 1993, Sydney Film Festival, 1993, Film Festival of Willington in New Zealand, 1993 and the Film Festival of Japan.
3.The petitioner submitted a preview copy of the said film to the Doordarshan with a covering letter dated 28th December, 1992 wherein he requested the second respondent the Director General, Doordarshan, to telecast it on the National network of the Doordarshan. Since the letter of the petitioner failed to evoke any response from the second respondent, the petitioner addressed another letter dated 7th April, 1993. As the first respondent failed to respond to the petitioner's letter second time as well either in word or in deed, the petitioner's advocate addressed a letter to the first respondent in which the latter was called upon to screen the petitioner's film on its National network. It was stated in the letter that the petitioner's film is an attempt to stem and counteract the fissiparous and sectarian tendencies and to promote integrative forces in the Indian Society. It was stated that in the present milieu of strife and bigotry, the film is capable of making a signal contribution for the unity and integrity of India. Why Doordarshan ignores such a film is really intriguing and fraught with hidden meanings which the Indian citizens have a right to know. Since even the advocate's notice failed to evoke any response from the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226.
4.The petitioner contends that Doordarshan being a State as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution, it must act within the structure of the Indian Constitution and its actions must be informed with fairness, justice, non-arbitrariness and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that he has a constitutional right to know why his film was not screened on the Doordarshan and what reasons led to the decision of the Doordarshan not to screen the film. By refusing to screen the film, the Doordarshan has deprived the petitioner of his freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The refusal of the Doordarshan to telecast the petitioner's film also denies to the Indian citizens their right to be informed of and enlightened about important developments relating to Babri Masjid dispute which has affected the public and democratic character of the Indian State. The petitioner contends that Part IV-A of the Constitution casts a fundamental duty on the Indian citizens to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India, transcend religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities to value and preserve the rich heritage, our composite culture and to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reforms among other things. The petitioner says that the duties and values mentioned above are inh
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
