1983 Supreme(Cal) 249

Calcutta High Court
P. C. BOROOAH, J.
Mrs. Usha Uthup - Appellant
Versus
State of W.B. - Respondents
Matter No. 1013 of 1983
Decided On : 1 September 1983

The arbitrary denial of access to a public hall to a singer based on the alleged singing of pop and disco songs violates the singer's fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, to practise her profession, and to equality before the law.

Headnote:

MAHAJATI SADAN ACT - SECTION 17(1), 17(2)(H), 18 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 12, 14, 19(1)(A), 19(1)(G) - WRIT PETITION - SINGER - BLACKLISTING - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - DISCRIMINATION - ULTRA VIRES - CONTEMPT OF COURT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PUBLIC HALL - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - NATURAL JUSTICE - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - PUBLIC AUTHORITY - STATE - POP SONGS - DISCO SONGS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTISE PROFESSION - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - FREEDOM OF THE PRESS - BLACKLISTING - UNIFORM POLICY - MOULDING OF RELIEF - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - COMITY BETWEEN JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a renowned singer, was denied permission to perform in the Mahajati Sadan Hall, a public hall under the control of the State Government, due to her alleged singing of pop and disco songs, which were deemed to be "APASANSKRITI" (perverted culture) by the Minister-in-Charge of the Public Works Department. The petitioner challenged this denial of access to the hall, alleging violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees, as a statutory body, was a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. The court further held that the denial of access to the hall without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was violated as the arbitrary denial of access to the hall amounted to a restriction on her right to sing and perform. Additionally, the court held that the petitioner's right to practise her profession under Article 19(1)(g) was also violated as the denial of access to the hall affected her ability to earn a living through her singing.

Issues: 1. Whether the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees is a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner without giving her an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner violated her right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner violated her right to practise her profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 5. Whether the resolution passed by the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees banning the performance of pop and disco songs in the hall was ultra vires the Mahajati Sadan Act? 6. Whether the statements made by the Minister-in-Charge of the Public Works Department to the press were contemptuous of the court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees, as a statutory body created by the Mahajati Sadan Act, was an instrumentality or agency of the State Government and thus fell within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner without giving her an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The court held that the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner violated her right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as the arbitrary denial of access to the hall amounted to a restriction on her right to sing and perform. 4. The court held that the denial of access to the Mahajati Sadan Hall to the petitioner violated her right to practise her profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the denial of access to the hall affected her ability to earn a living through her singing. 5. The court held that the resolution passed by the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees banning the performance of pop and disco songs in the hall was ultra vires the Mahajati Sadan Act as the Board did not have the power to regulate the purposes for which the hall could be used. 6. The court held that the statements made by the Minister-in-Charge of the Public Works Department to the press were contemptuous of the court, but refrained from taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act in order to maintain comity between the Judiciary and the Executive.

Final Decision: The court quashed the resolution passed by the Mahajati Sadan Board of Trustees banning the performance of pop and disco songs in the hall and directed the Board to consider any future applications by the petitioner for use of the hall in accordance with law, subject to availability and police permission. The court also reprimanded the Minister-in-Charge of the Public Works Department for his contemptuous statements to the press.