Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 74
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Gangele and G.D. Saxena, JJ.
Awdhesh Singh Bhadoria v. Union of India and others
Writ Petition (PIL) No.4738 of 2011 (Gwalior); Decided on 30.1.2013.
Awdhesh Singh Bhadoria petitioner in person;
Ankur Modi, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents No.1 and 2;
Vivek Khedkar, Deputy Advocate General for respondents 3 and 5/State;
Tapan Trivedi for respondent No.4;
Suresh Agrawal for respondent No.6.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art.19(1)(a) -- Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 -- S.3 -- Journalist Conduct, 2010 -- Norm 36 -- freedom of speech and expression cannot be exploited to sell the products commercially by making false claims or religious appeal -- direction to Union of India to take effective steps in regard to recommendations of Press Council of India within three months.
Held : It is a well settled principle of law that every citizen has a freedom of speech and freedom of expression, however, that right cannot be exploited to sell the products commercially by making false claims or by making the religious appeal. It would hamper the society adversely. There is no absolute freedom of expression of any commercial product and it has to claim its potential on the basis of accepted result in clinical trial. In our opinion, it is obligatory on the part of the Union of India to consider this aspect seriously as per the report submitted by the Press Council of India. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :
(1) The petitioner is free to make complaint before the respondents No.4 and 6 and we hope that such complaint be dealt with expeditiously effectively.
(2) Respondent No.1 Union of India is directed to take effective steps in regard to recommendations submitted by Smt. Vibha Bhargava, Secretary Press Council of India, specially recommendation No.2 as mentioned earlier in the order. It be considered within a period of three months. AIR 1960 SC 554 followed.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-19¼1½¼d½ && vks"kf/k vkSj peRdkfjd mipkj ¼vk{ksi.kh; foKkiu½ vf/kfu;e] 1954 && /kkjk 3 && i=dkj vkpj.k] 2010 && lfUu;e 36 && feF;k nkos ;k /kkfeZd vuqjks/k dj mRiknksa dk okf.kfT;d :i ls fodz; djus ds fy, okd~ rFkk vfHkO;fDr Lokra"; dk vuqfpr ykHk ugha mBk;k tk ldrk && Hkkjr la?k dks rhu ekl ds Hkhrj Hkkjrh; izsl ifj"kn~ dh flQkfj'kksa ds laca/k esa izHkkoh dne mBkus dk funs'kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fof/k dk lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd izR;sd ukxfjd dks okd~&Lokra"; rFkk vfHkO;fDr Lokra"; gS] rFkkfi bl vf/kdkj dk vuqfpr ykHk feF;k nkos ;k /kkfeZd vuqjks/k dj mRiknksa dk fodz; djus ds fy, ugha mBk;k tk ldrkA ;g lekt dks izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor djsxkA fdlh okf.kfT;d mRikn dh dksbZ fujkin vfHkO;fDr Lokra"; ugha gS rFkk bls uSnkfud ijh{k.k esa Lohd`r ifj.kke ds vk/kkj ij bldh var%'kfDr dk nkok djuk gksrk gSA gekjh jk; esa] bl igyw ij Hkkjr la?k ds fy, Hkkjrh; izsl ifj"kn~ }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj xaHkhjrk ls fopkj djuk ck/;dkjh gSA rn~uqlkj ;g ;kfpdk fuEufyf[kr funs'kksa lfgr fuiVkbZ tkrh gS %
¼1½ ;kph izR;FkhZ dz- 4 rFkk 6 ds le{k ifjokn djus ds fy, Lora= gS rFkk ge vk'kk djrs gSa fd ;g ifjokn 'kh?kzrk ls izHkkodkjh <ax ls fuiVk;k tk,A
¼2½ izR;FkhZ dz-1 Hkkjr la?k dks vkns'k esa ;Fkk iwoksZfYyf[kr Hkkjrh; izsl ifj"kn~ dh lfpo Jherh foHkk HkkxZo }kjk izLrqr flQkfj'kksa] fo'ks"kr;k flQkfj'k dz-2] ds laca/k esa izHkkodkjh dne mBkus dk funs'k fn;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 554 vuqlfjrA
Gangele, J. -- 1. The Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practicing advocate.
2. The allegation in the petition is that many advertisements have been published by the companies in the newspapers and it has been claimed in the advertisement that their products provide best treatment for particular ailment. It has further been pleaded that some of the advertisements are related to improvement in sex power, but it has no clinical and research based results. In some of the advertisements, phone numbers have been given in the name of Friendship Club, however, these advertisements are advertisements of giving phone numbers for sex. Even the advertisements of liquor have been published, which are illegal.
3. Learned counsel, who is also a petitioner, has contended that on television also certain advertisements have been shown, which have no proof of clinical trial. He, further submitted that in Astha channel regularly Baba Ramdev used to declare that his medicines have 100% cure at particular ailment including cancer, however, there is no proof or clinical trial.
4. The aforesaid argument has been advanced by the petitioner orally. No pleading to this effect has been given in the petition neither any CD of the programme has been filed along with the petition. Only one paper cutting of newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” has been filed.
5. Respondent No.6, Chairman, Advertising Standards Council of India, in its reply, submitted that the Advertising Standards Council of India, ASCI founded in 1985. It is an independent NGO consisting advertising industry viz. advertisers, adverising agencies, media and allied professions. The aim of ASCI is to maintain and enhance the public confidence in advertising. The advertising material must be truthful, legal and honest and decent. It has a Board of Governors, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCI) and there are sixteen members in the Board of Governors. It has further been submitted that any person can lodge his complaint with ASCI offended by an advertisement. A form has been prescribed for filing the complaint. The complaint could also be lodged on-line free of cost. The ASI investigates the complaint and the procedure is defined under three categories; Pre-Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) Meeting Procedure, CCC Meeting Procedure and Post CCC Meeting Procedure. It is further submitted that the present petitioner has not filed any complaint to this effect.
6. From the aforesaid reply, it is clear that the petitioner has remedy to file a complaint before the ASCI in prescribed form.
7. Respondent No.4 Press Council of India, has also filed its reply. It is pleaded in the reply that the Press Council of India was established under the Press Council Act of 1978. The object of the Institution is to preserve the freedom of the press and maintain and improve its standards. The Press Council of India has framed Norms of Journalist Conduct, Edition 2010, in order to build-up Code of Conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordance with High Professional Standards. This Code relates to Print Media. Norm 36 of the Journalist Conduct 2010 deals with advertisement. The aforesaid is as under :
“36. Advertisements. -- (i) Commercial advertisements are information as much as social, economic or political information. What is more, advertisements shape attitude and ways of life at least as much, as other kinds of information and comment. Journalistic propriety demands that advertisements must be clearly distinguishable from news content carried in the newspaper.
(ii) No advertisement shall be published, which promotes directly or indirectly production, sale or consumption of cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, liquor and other intoxicants.
(iii) Newspaper shall not publish advertisements, which have a tendency to malign or hurt the religious sentiments of any community or section of society.
(iv) Advertisements which offend the provisions of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objection
