The main legal point established in the judgment is that the advertisement of Yantra with special, miraculous, and supernatural properties was illegal under the Black Magic Act and the Cable Television Networks Act, and the duty of citizens to develop scientific temper and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed for reliefs of declaration, direction and injunction and the object is to prevent the advertisement made on TV channels by which there is promotion of sale of articles like Hanuman Chalisa Yantra.

3. The learned APP represented the State Government and police station. Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel represented the Government of Indian and the authority created by Government of India to have control over the TV channels. The original Petitioner wanted to withdraw the proceeding, but by order dated 6th July, 2018, this Court made it clear that the subject matter involves interest of public at large and the withdrawal cannot be allowed. Learned counsel Shri V. D. Sapkal (now learned senior counsel) was appointed as amicus curiae and he prosecuted the matter. Some amendments were made in the present proceeding by him.

4. It is contended in the petition that in March 2015, the Petitioner came across advertisements on TV channels and the advertisements were propagating that there were special, miraculous and supernatural properties / qualities in Hanuman Chalisa Yantra, which the advertiser was selling. The purpose of the advertisement was to promote the sale of said Yantra. It is contended that this was a false propaganda and the propaganda is made to exploit the persons, who are superstitious by nature and to exploit them.

5. It is contended in the petition that in the advertisement there was a propaganda that by using aforesaid Yantra, the businessmen who were making losses had started making huge profits, the persons who were not having employment had got employment, the persons who had lost hope to make career had made career in service, the students had improved their performance, sick persons had recovered from illness and the Yantra had brought happiness to the persons, who were grieved. It was also propagated that due to use of the Yantra, the persons who were not having any prospects of marriage had got married.

6. It is contended in the petition that there was a false propaganda that the Yantra was prepared by one Baba Mangalnath, who had achieved Siddhi (ability to do anything). It is contended that false propaganda was made that said Baba had blessings of Lord Hanuman. It is contended that false propaganda was made that bringing Yantra to home was like bringing Lord Hanuman himself to home and one, who was using it was feeling that Lord Hanuman was with him and Lord Hanuman was giving every kind of protection to him. It is contended that false propaganda was made that entire Hanuman Chalisa was written on Yantra in Germany and each letter written would last lifelong. It is contended that false representation was made that the Yantra (pendent) was having gold plating of 24 carat gold. It is contended that a chain was offered as a free and it was represented that the chain had also gold plating. It is contended that in the advertisement made on TV channels the price of Yantra was given as Rs.4,900/- and it was advertised that this was concessional rate. It is contended that the celebrities like Manoj Kumar (the then renowned film producer, writer, director, actor), Anuradha Paudwal (singer) and Anup Jalota (singer) were shown in the advertisement and their experiences were quoted that they had received benefits and they had experienced miracles by using the aforesaid Yantra. With the petition, transcript of the contents of the aforesaid advertisement is produced. A copy of the advertisement published in newspaper by the same seller is also produced. The contents of the advertisement are not disputed by the seller, Respondent No.11, who has contested the matter.

7. It is contended in the petition that to unearth falsity in aforesaid propaganda, the Petitioner had placed order for purchase of one such Yantra by contacting the office of Respondent No.11. It is contended that as per the d