A

B

ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.

v.

LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS.

JULY 19, 1988

IE.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)-Right

of citizen to exhibit films on T. V.-Subject to compliance of conditions

imposed by Doordarshan-Can be curtailed only under Art. 19(2).

C Article 226-Public interest Petition against exhibition of a TV serial-A/legi<Jg that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs and

superstitions among people-Violation

of any statutory or contractual

right not alleged-Whether High Court

was justified in issuing interim

injunction order?

D The T.

V. Serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was being telecast by Doordar-

shan on every Thursday between 9.00 P.M. and 9.30 P.M.

A writ petition was tiled by the Respondents stating that the

telecast was not in public interest as it had the effect of confirming blind

faiths, superstitious beliefs in stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition

E etc.

and of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and

blind beliefs.

The High Court issued an interim order of injunction not to telecast and

show episodes

12 and 13 of the serial.

Aggrieved by the interim order, the appellant, producer

of the

said serial, had come on appeal by special leave. This Court, while

F granting special leave stayed the operation of the interim order passed

by the High Court.

The appellant contended that the said serial and in particular

episodes

12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious

beliefs but on the

contrary criticised and condemned superstition and blind faith, and at

G the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific

explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein and consi­

dered by people as supernatural phenomenon. It was also submitted that

the viewers were told that they should search for scientific reason

whenever any unusual occurrence takes place.

H Allowing the appeal,

486

'

I

~

ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA 487

HELD: I. Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is

always very zealously guarded by this Court. It can no longer be dis·

puted that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan

subject to the terms and conditions

to be imposed by the Doordarshan is

a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed

under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India which can be

curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause (2) of

Article

19 of the Constitution of India. The right is similar to the right

of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as

news·

paper, magazines, advertisement hoardings etc. subject to the terms

and conditions of the owners of the media. [491B; 490C-E]

2. The High Court was in error in the present case in issuing the

interim

order of injunction which is set aside. [492B]

3.1 The objection to the exhibition of the film was that it was

likely to spread false

or blind beliefs amongst the members of the

public. The Respondents had not asserted any right conferred

on them

by any statute

or acquired by them under a contract which entitled

them to secure an order

of temporary injunction. [491C-D]

3.2 As alleged by the Respondents, if all the episodes in the serial

were offensive they could have approached the High Court as early as

possible within the first two

or three weeks after the commencement of

A

B

c

D

the exhibition of the serial. But they waited till the exhibition of the E

11th episode

of the serial was over and then filed the petition. They

had not produced any material apart from their own statements to

show

that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the

community. [491E-G]

3.3 The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order of in-F

terim injunction in this case could infringe a fundamental right of the

producer of the serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence of

grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally

by

the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an order of

temporary injunction.

The exhibition of the serial in question was not

likely to endanger public morality. In the circumstances of the case the G

balance

of convenience lay in favour of the rejection of the prayer for

interim injunction. [491G-H;

492A]

[This Court reserved its opinion on the question whether a citizen

has a fundamental right to establish a private broadcasting station, or

television centre, to be decided in an appropriate case.I

[490E) H

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1523

of 1988.

Fro~ the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.1988 of the Bombay

High Court in W.P. No.

479 of 1988.

'Iii

B K.K. Venugopal, A.N. Haksar, S. Vazifdar, Raian Karan-

c

jawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Hardeep S. Anand for the

Appellant.

B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General,

P. Parmeswaran,

S.C.

Birala and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court

was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed

against an interim order of injunction issued by the High Court of

Bombay, Aurangabad Bench on

13th April, 1988 directing the three

D respondents; (1)

Union of India, (2) Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, Parliament House,

New Delhi and (3)

State of

Maharashtra, not to telecast and

show episodes 12 and 13 of a serial

entitled 'Honi-Anhoni' pending disposal of Writ Petition

No. 479 of

1988 filed by Respondent No. !, Lokvidayan Sanghatana, a registered

social organisation of Pune having its branch at Aurangabad and

E Respondent No. 2 Mahila

Sangharsha Samiti, Aurangabad represen­

ted by one

of its members

Smt. Anagna Patil. The writ petition was in

the nature of a public interest litigation. The prayer in the writ petition

was that the respondents should be directed not to telecast the serial

as

such telecasting was not in the public interest.

F The serial 'Honi-Anhoni'

was being telecast by the Doordar-

shan, which

was run by the

Union of India, on every Thursday bet­

ween 9 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. The 12th episode of the said serial was to be

telecast on 14th April,

1988 and the 13th episode was to be telecast on

21st April,

1988. By virtue of the interim order passed on 13th April,

1988 episode No. 12 could not be telecast on 14th April, 1988.

G Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court the appel­

lant, Odyssey Communication

Pvt. Ltd., which was the producer of

the serial 'Honi-Anhoni'

filed the special leave petition before this

Court under Article

136 of the Constitution of India out of which this

appeal arises. The said petition came up before this Court for consid­

eration on April 21,

1988. After hearing the learned counsel for the

H appellant this Court granted special leave to prefer an appeal against

ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 489

the order passed by the High Court and also stayed the operation of

the interim order datd 13th April,

1988 passed by the High Court until

further orders and permitted the Doordarshan to telecast the serial in

question. In view of the above order the 12th episode of the serial was

telecast on the 2 lst of April, 1988. The appeal was heard on the 28th of

April,

1988 and this Court reserved judgment on the appeal. At the

end of the hearing of the appeal on 28th April, 1988 the Court expres­

sed that it would set aside the order passed

by the High Court against

which the appeal had been filed and would give reasons

in the course

of its judgment. Since the order of stay passed by the Court was

allowed to remain in force the 13th episode, which was the last episode

of the serial was telecast on the 28th April, 1988.

The grounds mentioned in the writ petition in support of the

prayer made in it were that in each and every episode telecast

in the

serial an obscure and mysterious atmosphere

was being created due to

the way of the presentation of the episodes and that it had created fear

in the minds of the common viewers and especially of children

as the

serial had the effect of confirming blinds faiths, superstitious beliefs

in

stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition etc. and of spreading the unsci­

entific way

of thinking and blind beliefs. It was further contended that

it was the duty

of the State not to encourage blind beliefs amongst the

public by telecasting such episodes.

It was on the basis of these

grounds the High Court was requested to grant the interim order of

injunction. The appellant was the producer of the said serial, yet the

appellant was not made a party to the writ petition. But on its applica­

tion the appellant was impleaded as a party on 12.4.1988.

On

13.4.1988 the High Court passed the impugned order of temporary

in junction. The appellant rushed to this Court immediately thereafter

with the above said special leave petition. The appellant has stated

before us that the said serial and

in particular episodes 12 and 13 did

not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the contrary criticised and

condemned superstition and blind faith as

was ex facie apparent from

the scripts of episodes 12 and 13 produced before this Court. It is

stated that at the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor

gave a scientific explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed

therein and considered by people

as supernatural phenomena. It is

alleged that in the 13th episode after a scientific explanation of what

had taken place the viewers were told as follows:

"All those who without thinking spread blind faith

ought to feel ashamed of themselves.

We

r'equest all of you

that whenever any unusual occurrences takes place or a

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

seemingly improbable event occurs, before believing in it,

to reflect as to whether there

is a scientific reason for it or is

it purely psychological by nature. If all of us exercise such

caution we believe that the malady of blind faith

will soon

be eradicated by our

society."

The appellant further pleaded that the High Court was in error in

issuing the order of injunction without giving a reasonable opportunity

to it (the producer), which was likely to be affected by the order, to

explain that the writ petitioners had no right to move the Court in the

circumstances of the case.

It can no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit

films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be

imposed by the Doordarshan

is a part of the fundamental right of

freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Con-

D stitution of India which can be curtailed only under circumstances

which are set out

in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of

India.

The right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views

through any other media such

as newspapers, magazines, advertise­

ment hoardings etc. subject to the terms and conditions of the owners

of the media. We hasten to add that what we have observed here does

E not mean that a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a private

boardcasting station,

or television center.

On this question we reserve

our opinion. It has to be decided in an appropriate case. The relevant

part of Article

19 of the Constitution reads thus:

F

G

H

"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom

of speech, etc.-(1) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(2) Nothing

in sub-clause (a) of clause(!) shall affect

the operation of any existing law,

or prevent the

State from

making any law,

in so far as such law imposes reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the

said sub-clause

in the interests of the sovereignty and

integrity of India, the security of the

State, friendly rela­

tions with foreign States, public order, decency or moral-

>

ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 491

ity, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or in­

citement to an offence .

... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

·.· ............... .

Freedom of expression is a preferred right which .is always very

A

zealously guarded by this Court. B

It was not the case of the petitioners in the Writ Petition that the

exhibition

of serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was in contravention of any specific

law

or direction issued by the Government. They had not alleged that

the Doordarshan had shown any undue favour to the appellant and the

sponsoring institutions resulting

in any financial loss to the public

exchequer.

The objection to the exhibition of the film had, however,

been raised by

tlhem on the basis that it was likely to spread false or

blind beliefs amongst the members of the public. They had not

asserted any right conferred on them by any statute

or acquired by

them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order of

temporary injunction against which this appeal

is filed. The appellant

had denied that the exhibition of the serial was likely to affect prejudi­

cially the well-being

of the people. The

Union of· India and the

Doordarshan have pleaded that the serial

was being telecast after fol­

lowing the prescribed procedure and taking necessary precaution. In

such a situation, the High Court should not have immediately pro­

ceeded

to pass the interim orde of injunction. It was no doubt true that

the 12th episode was to be telecast on 14th April, 1988 and the 13th

episode was to be telecast on 21st April,

1988. If the petitioners in the

writ petition

had felt, as they had alleged in the course of the petition,

that all the episodes in the serial were offensive they could have

approached the High Court as early as possible within the first two

or

three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the serial.

But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th episode of the serial was

over and filed the petition only in the second week of April, 1988.

They had not produced any material apart from their own statements

to show

that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to

the community. The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order

c

D

E

F

of interim injunction in this case would infringe a fundamental right of G

the producer of the serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence

of grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally

by .the exhibition of the serial it

was not just and proper to issue an

order of temporary injunction. We are not satisfied that the exhibition

of the serial in question was likely to

e_ndanger public morality. In the

circumstances

of the case the

balance· of convenience lay in favour of H

A

B

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

the rejection of the prayer for interim injunction. What we have stated.

here is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. The other questions of law

which may arise in ? case of this nature will have to be dealt with in an

appropriate case. We express no opinion on those questions

in this

ca.se. We are, however, of the opinion that the High Court was

in error

in the present case in issuing the interim order of

injunr•ion against

which this appeal

is filed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set

aside the interim order of injunction passed

by the High Court on the

13th

of April, 1988. There is, however, no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.