http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 613 of 2005

PETITIONER:

Director General,Directorate General of Doordarshan & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Anand Patwardhan & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2006

BENCH:

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

The appellant in the present matter is Doordarshan who

have decided not to telecast the documentary film made by the

respondent titled "Father, son and Holy War". The respondent

is a filmmaker. The respondent no.1 in 1995 submitted his

documentary film, "Father, son and Holy War", to the

appellant for telecast on National network Doordarshan.

Respondent no.1 was to provide a U-matic Certificate for the

same to be aired by Doordarshan.

The documentary film was in two parts, the film dealt

with social realities and issues such as patriarchy, violence,

fundamentalism, suppression of women etc. Part-I was given

'U' Certificate and Part-II was given 'A' Certificate by the

Censor Board.

A few lines about the film and the producer:-

Father, Son and Holy War is the third part of a trilogy

of documentary films against communal violence that the

author made from the mid 1980's to the mid 1990's. His two

earlier films In Memory of Friends (1990) (on building

communal peace in strife torn Punjab) and Ram Ke Naam/In

the Name of God (1992) (on the Ayodhya crisis) looked at the

question of class and caste. Both films won National Awards

but both were rejected by Doordarshan on the grounds that

they would create law and order problems. In the end, the

author won the cases in the High Court and the films were

finally telecast by Doordarshan. No law and order problems

resulted and the telecasts were well received.

Father, Son and Holy War (1995) was also shot during

this period. It looks at the question of gender along with the

issue of religious violence. What triggered this way of looking

was the incident of Sati in Deorala and that fact that

thousands of young men were celebrating the death of Roop

Kanwar. This led the author to examine the male psyche

behind violence \026 and the idea that women were property. It is

common knowledge that very often sexual violence against

women accompanies communal riots. This may be because

the "enemy's" women are seen as his property and so, worthy

of abduction or destruction.

The first part of Father, Son and Holy War ("Trial by

Fire") looks at the problems faced by Hindu and Muslim

women within their own religions. Part 2 (Hero Pharmacy)

examines the construction of the values of "manhood". As the

film proceeds we become privy to the inner psyche of men and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

begin to learn how men are socialized into believing that

violence is desirable. The film looks at the rhetoric of street

sellers of aphrodisiac who create feelings of male insecurity

and impotence in their audience and then offer their cheap

medicine as a cure. It then looks at the rhetoric of communal

politicians (both Hindus and Muslims) and see that they too

are appealing largely to their male audiences, they too are

taunting them for their impotence, but the medicine they offer

for the creation of "real men" is hatred against the other

community.

On 14.8.1996, the appellant issued a circular which

stated that Doordarshan will not telecast any 'A' certified adult

or U/A feature film on it. On 28.2.1997, the respondent

handed over a copy of the U-matic Certificate of the

documentary film to the appellant. However, Doordarshan still

refused to telecast the documentary film.

On 22.9.1998, the respondent no.1, filed a writ petition

before the Bombay High Court against the refusal of

Doordarshan to telecast the documentary film, which was

disposed off by the Division Bench by directing Doordarshan

to take a decision on the application of respondent no.1 within

a period of six weeks.

A selection Committee was constituted on 10.8.1998 by

the appellant to preview the documentary film produced by

respondent no.1. The selection Committee observed that, "The

documentary entitled 'Father, Son & Holy War' depicts the rise

of Hindu fundamentalism and male chauvinism without giving

any solution how it could be checked. The violence and hatred

which is depicted in the whole documentary will have an

adverse effect on the minds of the viewers\005" This decision of

the Selection Committee was communicated to the

respondents on 20.8.1998.

Against this the respondent no.1 approached Bombay

High Court. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court

allowed the writ and directed the appellant to telecast the

respondent no.1 documentary film "Father, son and the Holy

War" within a period of six weeks in the evening slot. This

decision by the High Court was challenged by the appellant by

way of a Special Leave Petition in this Court. This Court

observed that, the Committee which was constituted to

consider the proposal of the respondent was not validly

constituted as required under the guidelines of Doordarshan

and therefore the decision taken by the Committee was

without jurisdiction. This court went ahead to order on

12.12.2001 the constitution of a new Committee in accordance

with para 5(ii) of the Guidelines of Doordarshan to consider

the proposal of the respondent within three months of the

constitution of such Committee.

A Committee was duly constituted and on 6.8.2002, the

committee viewed the documentary film and was of the

opinion that, "the film has a secular message relevant to our

times and our society\005however, the film contains scenes and

speeches, which can influence negative passions\005and the

committee would like a larger committee with representatives

of religion and politics also to see the film and form an opinion

before it is open to public viewing."

A larger committee was constituted and viewed the

documentary film. The said committee on 5.6.2003

recommended the screening of this documentary film on

Doordarshan while observing that, "it may alienate sections of

Indian society and screening may lead to reactions by

organized groups."

On 11.7.2003, the Prasar Bharati Board pre-viewed the

documentary film and was of the opinion that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

documentary film contained scenes which could promote

violence, its production quality was unsatisfactory and its

telecast would be violative of the policy of the Doordarshan of

not screening "A" certified movies. This decision of

Doordarshan was communicated to the respondent no.1 on

18.7.2003.

A contempt petition was filed by respondent no.1 alleging

the disobedience of the order of the High Court dated

12.12.2001. The High Court disposed off the petition by

holding that the respondent was aggrieved of the decision of

Prasar Bharati Board, and it was open to him to challenge the

same before an appropriate forum.

The respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High

Court and directed Doordarshan to exhibit the documentary

film of the respondent no.1, "Father, son and Holy War" on

channel I or II within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment

on a convenient day and time as fixed by Doordarshan. It is

against this decision of the High Court of Bombay the

Doordarshan has come on appeal to this Court. .

We heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent. We have viewed the screening of

the documentary film titled "Father, son and the Holy War"

which is the subject matter of the present case before us. We

have also carefully perused all the documents presented by

both the parties before us.

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

Doordarshan submitted that the decision not to telecast the

film of the respondent is based on valid and germane

considerations and no film maker can claim that he has a

vested right that a film made by him must be telecast on

Doordarshan. He submitted that as a matter of policy the

Doordarshan do not telecast films which are certified as "A" or

"UA". Admittedly Part one of the film in question has been

certified as "U" and Part two as "A". The policy of

Doordarshan of not telecasting "A" or "UA" films has not been

challenged by the respondent here. Therefore, the

Doordarshan cannot be directed to telecast the film contrary

to its policy. Learned counsel also submitted that the telecast

of the film is likely to give rise to communal violence and riots

and that Doordarshan has reached the remote corners of the

country. It has a wide audience which mainly consists of

illiterate and average persons who will be largely affected due

to screening of the film.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent submitted that the refusal by Prasar

bharti to telecast the film is a clear violation of the

respondent's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution. He urged that the film carries a strong message

for unity and secular India and there is no justification to

prevent its telecast on Doordarshan. It is submitted that the

Doordarshan has a policy of telecasting award winning films

and documentaries and the action of the Doordarshan in

refusing to screen the film contrary to the said policy is totally

unfair, unjust and arbitrary. Learned counsel further

submitted that the Censor Board has approved the film and

the guidelines of Doordarshan in telecasting the film cannot be

substantially different from the guidelines laid down under the

Cinematographic Act, 1952. In any event, according to the

learned counsel unless the said guidelines are read down they

would be liable to be strucked down as grossly violating the

fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution.

In view of the rival submissions, the following substantial

questions of law arise for adjudication by this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

(a) Whether any film producer has a right to insist that

his film must be shown on Doordarshan?

(b) Whether the High Court was justified in directing

the screening of the film certified as U/A.

Notwithstanding the fact as a matter of policy,

Doordarshan does not telecast adult film?

(c) Whether the policy of Doordarshan of not

telecasting adult movies can be said to be violative

of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as has

been held by the High Court?

(d) Whether or not it is open to the High Court to

substitute its opinion for that of the competent

authority as to whether a film is fit for being telecast

on a public medium such as Doordarshan?

In the instant case, the documentary of the respondent

has been cleared by the Central Board for Film Certification,

the Film Certification Board, which is a body of experts was

obviously not of the view that the film promotes communal

violence, otherwise, the film would not have been certified by

the Board for public exhibition. In view of this background,

we are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Prasarbharti

Board.

The film of the respondent no doubt deals with the

communal violence. At the same time, we also listen to a

stirring speech made by a woman activist on a street who

exhorts people to "remember their neighbours" during

communal riots. The film contains a narrative of a muslim

woman, a social worker who has been raped by the communal

murderers of her husband and that of a Hindu mill worker

whose children were killed in the bomb blast which occurred

in the aftermath of the communal riots. The attempt of the

film maker is to portray the miseries of the innocent victims of

the communal riots. These sequences convey an obvious

message of communal harmony as an ordinary muslim slum

dweller is seen in the closing sequences of the film re-building

the destroyed home of his Hindu neighbour. The message of

the filmmaker cannot be gathered by viewing only certain

portions of the film in isolation but one has to view it as a

whole. There are scenes of violence, social injustices but the

film by no stretch of imagination can be said to subscribe to

the same. They are meant to convey that such social evils are

evil. There cannot be any apprehension that it is likely to

affect public order or it is likely to incite commission of an

offence. We are shocked at the observation of the Prasar

Bharati Board that the film is not suitable due to

unsatisfactory production quality and that the film has

nothing specific to convey in public interest. The documentary

was given two awards in 42nd National Film Festival of 1995

conducted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,

Government of India as Best Investigative Film and Best film

on social issues. It is, therefore, highly irrational and incorrect

to say that the documentary which was selected as best

investigative film and best film on social issues promote

violence and its production quality was unsatisfactory and

that the film has no specific message to convey. The

documentary has won several awards in the International film

festivals. However, the Prasar Bharati Board strangely

comments that the film had nothing specific to convey in

public interest. This view of the Prasar Bharati is in contrast

with the opinion expressed by the two committees constituted

by the appellants. The first committee held that the film had a

secular message relevant to our times and our society and it

was a critique of the current concept of masculinity and the

violence it legitimises. The second committee said that it was

a very good film and must be shown. Ordinarily the decision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

of the selection committee in all cases shall be final as per

para 5(viii) of the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting for telecasting films. However,

it appears that the appellants were bent upon rejecting the

film and the decision of the committee was overruled by the

Prasar Bharati Board under the pretext that the guidelines

prohibit Doordarshan from exhibiting any film which is

granted 'A' certificate and since part II i.e. Hero Pharmacy has

been granted 'A' certificate telecast of the said film is not

permitted under the guidelines framed by the Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting.

In the instant case, the guidelines relied upon by the

Doordarshan are not even framed under the Cinematograph

Act but they are merely internal guidelines for the guidance of

the officials of the Doordarshan. Therefore, in our view, it

would not be proper to deny telecast of an award winning

documentary merely on the ground that part II of the said

documentary is certified as "A" by the Censor Board. In our

view, a documentary cannot be denied exhibition on

Doordarshan simply on account of it's "A" certification or "UA"

certification. Mr. Rajeev Sharma made an attempt to object to

certain scenes in the documentary especially one scene where

a person is seen selling aphrodiscies on the road and while

doing so is making certain remarks on the sexuality of males.

As indicated in paragraphs supra, a film must be judged from

an average, healthy and common sense point of view. If the

said yardstick is applied and the film is judged in its entirety

and keeping in view the manner in which the filmmaker has

handled the theme, it is impossible to agree that those scenes

are offended by vulgarity and obscenity. It is interesting to

note that these objections were not even raised by any of the

committees constituted for the purpose of assessing the film.

OBSERVATIONS:

One of the most controversial issues is balancing the

need to protect society against the potential harm that may

flow from obscene material, and the need to ensure respect for

freedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of

information and idea. The Constitution guarantees freedom of

expression but in Article 19(2) it also makes it clear that the

State may impose reasonable restriction in the interest of

public decency and morality.

The crucial question therefore, is, 'what is obscenity?'

The law relating to obscenity is laid down in Sec.292 of the

Indian Penal Code, which came about, by Act 36 of 1969.

Under the present sec.292 and sec.293 of the Indian

Penal Code, there is a danger of publication meant for public

good or for bona fide purpose of science, literature, art or any

other branch of learning being declared as obscene literature

as there is no specific provision in the act for exempting them

from operations of those sections.

The present provision is so vague that it becomes difficult

to apply it. The purposeful omission of the definition of

obscenity has led to attack of Section 292 of the Indian penal

Code as being too vague to qualify as a penal provision. It is

quite unclear what the provisions mean. This unacceptably

large 'grey area', common in laws restricting sexual material,

would appear to result not from a lack of capacity or effort on

the part of drafters or legislators.

The Indian Penal Code on obscenity grew out of the

English Law, which made court the guardian of public morals.

It is important that where bodies exercise discretion, which

may interfere in the enjoyment of constitutional rights, that

discretion must be subject to adequate law. The effect of

provisions granting broad discretionary regulatory powers is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

unforeseeable and they are open to arbitrary abuse.

In Samaresh Bose & Anr v. Amal Mitra & Anr (1985)

4 SCC 284 it was observed by this Court: "The concept of

obscenity is moulded to a very great extent by the social

outlook of the people who are generally expected to read the

book. It is beyond dispute that the concept of obscenity

usually differs from country to country depending on the

standards of morality of contemporary society in different

countries. In our opinion, in judging the question of obscenity,

the Judge in the first place should try to place himself in the

position of the author and from the viewpoint of the author.

The judge should thereafter place himself in the position of a

reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to

fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible

influence the book is likely to have in the minds of the readers.

The judge should thereafter apply his judicial mind

dispassionately to decide whether the book in question can be

said to be obscene within the meaning of Section 292, IPC by

an objective assessment of the book as a whole and also of the

passages complained of as obscene separately."

This is one of the few liberal judgments the courts have

given. The point to worry about is the power given to the judge

to decide what he/she thinks is obscene. This essentially

deposits on the Supreme Court of India, the responsibility to

define obscenity and classify matters coming on media as

obscene or otherwise. This Court has time and again adopted

the test of obscenity laid down by Cockburn CJ. The test of

obscenity is, 'whether the tendency of the matter charged as

obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are

open to such immoral influences, and in whose hands a

publication in media of this sort may fall.'

Interestingly, this test of obscenity, which was laid down

in the Hicklin case in 1869, is the only test in India to

determine obscenity.

The Encyclopedia definition of obscenity states, 'By

English law it is an indictable misdemeanor to show an

obscene exhibition or to publish any obscene matter, whether

it be writing or by pictures, effigy or otherwise.' The precise

meaning of "obscene" is, however, decidedly ambiguous. It has

been defined as something offensive to modesty or decency, or

expressing or suggesting unchaste or lustful ideas or being

impure, indecent or lewd".

In the United States, obscene material is any material or

performance, if: the average person applying contemporary

community standards would find that the subject matter

taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; the subject

matter depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual

conduct of a type described in this section; and the subject

matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,

political, educational or scientific value.

Therefore, one can observe that, the basic guidelines for

the tier of fact must be:

(a) whether " the average person, applying contemporary

community standards" would find that the work, taken as a

whole, appeals to the prurient interest\005.;

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently

offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the

applicable state law; and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,

artistic political, or scientific value.

The Constitution of India guarantees everyone the right to

freedom of expression. India is also a party to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and therefore bound to

respect the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by

Article 19 thereof, which states:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without

interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this

right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers,

either orally, in writing or in print, in form of art, or through

any other media of his choice.

This right guaranteed by the Indian constitution is

subject to various restrictions. Like, respect of the rights or

reputation of others; protection of national security or of

public order, or of public health or morals etc.

The catchword here is 'reasonable restriction' which

corresponds to the societal norms of decency. In the present

matter, the documentary film Father, Son and Holy War

depicts social vices that are eating into the very foundation of

our Constitutional. Communal riots, caste and class issues

and violence against women are issues that require every

citizen's attention for a feasible solution. Only the citizens

especially the youth of our Nation who are correctly informed

can arrive at a correct solution. This documentary film in our

considered opinion showcases a real picture of crime and

violence against women and members of various religious

groups perpetrated by politically motivated leaders for

political, social and personal gains.

This film so far as our opinion goes does not violate any

Constitutional provision nor will create any law and order

problems as the Doordarshan fears. This movie falls well

within the limits prescribed by our Constitution and does not

appeal to the prurient interests in an average person, applying

contemporary community standards while taking the work as

a whole, the work is not patently offensive and does not

proceed to deprave and corrupt any average Indian citizen's

mind.

In addition we are emphasizing here on the fact that

many Committees have screened this documentary film

including a committee set up by the appellants themselves

involving media experts, representatives of various religions

and politics, who have opined that, "It is a very good film and

must be shown. It may alienate sections of Indian society and

screening may lead to reactions by organized groups. In the

unanimous view of the committee that protest is an important

part of Indian democracy and was a part of its fight for

independence, which is also a compelling reason for the film to

be shown. Keeping these in mind the committee recommends

that the screening of the film be preceded by a discussion in

which alternative views are given by persons with different

views." As we see, only Doordarshan has an opposition with

airing the documentary film stating policy related difficulties.

To this we are of the view that, since the Central Board of Film

Certification has already cleared the documentary film in

question by award of U/A certificate, the policy of

Doordarshan of non-telecast of 'A' certified films will not stand

on the way of this film being aired. A blanket ban as this one

will be in violation of Article 19(2) of the Constitution which

guarantees right of a citizen to express himself/herself. The

Supreme Court has clarified on this regard way back in 1970,

in the case of K.A. Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr,

(1970) 2 SCC 780 where this Court held that, "Sex and

obscenity are not always synonymous and it is wrong to

classify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or

immoral." In yet another case of Ramesh vs. Union of India,

(1988 (1) SCC 668) this court has observed that, "\005that the

effect of the words must be judged from the standards of

reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men, and not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent

danger in every hostile point of view. This, in our opinion, is

the correct approach in judging the effect of exhibition of a film

or of reading a book. It is the standard of ordinary reasonable

man or as they say in English law "the man on the top of

Claapham omnibus."

Hence, in our view, the correct approach to be taken here

is to look at the documentary film as a whole and not in bits,

as any message that is purported to be conveyed by way of a

film cannot be conveyed just by watching certain bits of the

film. In the present situation the documentary film is seeking

to portray certain evils prevalent in our society and is not

seeking to cater to the prurient interests in any person.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that this

documentary film if judged in its entirety has a theme and

message to convey and the view taken by the appellants that

the film is not suitable for telecast is erroneous.

In this regard, the guidelines issued by the Central

Government to evaluate films gain importance and can be

referred to. Clause 3 of the Guidelines reads as follows:

"Clause 3: The Board of Film Certification shall also

ensure that the film:

(i) is judged in its entirety from the point of the

overall impact; and

(ii) is examined in the light of the period depicted in

the film and the contemporary standards of the

country and the people to which the film relates,

provided that the film does not deprave the

morality of the audience."

It was held in Bobby Art International & Ors v Om Pal

Singh Hoon & Ors (1996) 4 SCC 1, K A Abbas (Supra) that a

film was required to be viewed as a whole, and in the context

of the message that the filmmaker desired to communicate.

In this film too, scenes must be seen in the context of the

message of exploitation of women through insecurities created

in men and the film must be evaluated in its entirety.

In LIC of India v Prof. Manubhai D. Shah with UOI v

Cinemart Foundation (1992) 3 SCC 637, it was held that

merely because a film was critical of the State Government,

DD could not deny selection and publication of the film. This

film was an award winning film about the Bhopal Gas

Tragedy. Likewise, in S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram &

Ors (1989) 2 SCC 574, it has been observed that Censors

should not have an orthodox or conservative outlook, but

must be responsive to change and must go with the current

climate. The state cannot prevent open discussion, however

hateful to its policies. This was about a film that criticized the

existing reservation policy and proposed an alternative system

based on economic deprivation.

We also are aware that the documentary film made by

respondent no.1 has won many National and International

awards. The documentary film won National Awards in two

categories viz "Best Investigative Film" and "Best Film on

Social Issues" in the 42nd National Film Festival 1995,

conducted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The documentary film also won Special Jury Award in Israel,

Japan and Canada. Keeping these facts in view we find it

absurd that a documentary film that has won the National

award is facing problems for it being screened on the National

Television.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

CONCLUSION:

In our opinion, the respondent has a right to convey his

perception on the oppression of women, flawed understanding

of manhood and evils of communal violence through the

documentary film produced by him. As already noticed, this

film has won awards for best investigative film and best film

on social issues at the national level. The documentary film

has won several awards at the international level as well. The

freedom of expression, which is legitimate and constitutionally

protected, cannot be held to ransom on a mere fall of a hat.

The film in its entirety has a serious message to convey and is

relevant in the present context. Doordarshan being a State

controlled agency funded by public funds could not have

denied access to screen the respondent's documentary except

on specified valid grounds.

The refusal of the appellants to telecast the film in the

current case in the face of unanimous recommendations by

their own Committees set up in accordance to the direction of

this Court is an issue to be addressed apart. The High Court

of Bombay has not substituted its discretion for that of the

authorities. On the contrary, the High Court has ruled that

when the decision making process has itself resulted in the

recommendations to telecast; it is not open to the

Doordarshan to find other means just to circumvent this

recommendation. The High Court has only corrected the

failure of Doordarshan to follow through with their own

decision making process on the pretext of a Circular which

being non-statutory cannot be used to limit right of

expression. Besides the Circular, in terms, applies only to

feature films and not to documentaries. Before ruling thus,

the High Court viewed the film for itself which is a process

followed innumerable times before even by this Court in cases

concerning the official media to satisfy itself the

recommendations of the Expert Committee was not patently

absurd. Thus, it is not a case where the High Court has

substituted its judgment for that of the decision-making

authority but one where the decision made by due process has

been upheld by the High Court. In our view, the Doordarshan

being a National Channel controls airwaves, which are public

property. The right of the people to be informed calls for

channelizing and streamlining Doordarshan's control over the

national telecast media vehicle.

We also are of the view that, Doordarshan all through the

present matter has been displaying a sad reluctance in

telecasting this film, which was made almost ten years ago. We

can trace a history of Doordarshan not telecasting many films

in spite of them being award winning films at the national and

international level, this can be seen in the case of films like "In

Memory of Friends", "Ram ke Naam" etc. In addition an

interesting observation that can be arrived is that

Doordarshan has been finding flimsy excuses time and again

as clear from the facts in not telecasting the documentary film

in question every time the film was sought to be aired either at

the instance of the respondent or due to the orders of the

court. This in our view in highly irrational and is blatant

violation of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution. This behavior of Doordarshan would justify us in

stating that Doordarshan is being dictated by rules of

malafides and arbitrariness in taking decisions with regard to

In light of the above, the instant appeal at the instance of

Doordarshan is devoid of any merits. Thus, the impugned

judgment deserves to be upheld and sustained by this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the orders

passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench are

affirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

The appellant-Doordarshan is directed to exhibit the

entire documentary film of the respondent Father, Son and

Holy War on Channel No. 1 or 2 within 8 weeks from today on

such convenient date and time as may be fixed by

Doordarshan.