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

2011 Supreme(Del) 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Muralidhar, J.
Star India Private Limited
Vs.
Union of India (UOI)
W.P. (C) 3823/2010
Decided On: 26.08.2011

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. and Sidharth Chopra, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Inderjit Sidhu, Adv.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 14--Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995--Cable Television Network Rules--Rule 6--Use of derogatory language offending any community--No objective standard for determination--Reasons given in the counter affidavit but not relied in the impugned order--Reasons can not be supplied later on--Arbitrary order based on no reason--Impugned order set aside.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. Star India Private Limited ('SIPL') challenges an order dated 3rd/4th March 2010 issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ('I&B Ministry'), Government of India administering a warning to Star Plus Channel ('SPC') to strictly adhere to the Programme Code ('PC') prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 ('CTNR Act') and the Rules framed thereunder and directing it to exercise extreme caution and restraint "while referring to any incidence in their teleprogrammes which might appear derogatory to a particular community". It was further stated that strict compliance to the direction should be ensured by the SPC and that any further violation might entail stringent action.

2. SIPL is engaged in the business of producing and supplying content to various channels operated under the name 'STAR' including the SPC. It is stated that SPC is India's most watched Hindi language based general entertainment television channel with more than 50 million viewers every week. SIPL telecasts a fictional program titled "Sapna Babul Ka - Bidaai" (hereinafter 'the program in question') on SPC.

3. On 23rd October 2009, the I&B Ministry issued a show cause notice to SIPL stating that it had come to the notice of the I&B Ministry that the telecast/re-telecast of the episode of the program in question on 6th October 2009 "contained objectionable and derogatory remarks against Maharishi Valmiki having the effect of maligning an individual who is part of the social and moral life of large sections of the country". It was stated in the show cause notice that "the words used in the aforesaid episode also appear to be contemptuous of religious groups and promote communal attitudes. The words used in the aforesaid episode also appear to be defamatory and are likely to encourage violence". The show cause notice refers to Section 5 of the CTNR Act and Rule 6 (1) (c), (e) and (i) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 ('CTN Rules'), as amended from time to time in terms of which No. programme can be transmitted/retransmitted on any cable service which contains an attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes, and is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes or maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country. SIPL was called upon to show cause within fifteen days as to why action as per the provisions of Downlinking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of the permission granted, and the provisions of Section 20 of the CTNR Act should not be taken against SIPL.

4. On 23rd November 2009, SIPL replied to the show cause notice where inter alia it was contended that the show cause notice was bereft of any details throwing light on the features/aspects of the program in question which were in violation of the PC. It was further maintained by SIPL that the telecast on 6th October 2009 had only referred to Maharishi Valmiki in a laudatory, inspirational and complimentary manner. The reference to Maharishi Valmiki had to be seen in the context of the serial and could not be taken out of context and analyzed. The programme had to be viewed in totality and then judged whether it abided by the PC or not. It was stated that the reference to Maharishi Valmiki was purely with a view to exemplify a person who overcame great odds to achieve a place in history. It was stated that the program duly complied with Rule 6 (1) (c), (e) and (i) of the CTN Rules.

5. The Petitioner was granted a personal hearing before the Director (Broadcasting Content) on 10th December 2009. It also filed an additional reply on 17th December 2009 to the show cause notice setting out the additional steps it had taken. It was inter alia stated that an article was published in the Punjab Keshri J



































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top