S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1668-69 of 1988.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5805-5806 of 1988)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5805-5806 of 1988)
Petitioner: S. Rangarajan
Respondent: P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1668-69 of 1988.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5805-5806 of 1988)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5805-5806 of 1988)
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 02, 1988
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
Articles 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 25 – Freedom of speech and expression – Film ‘Ore Oru Gramathila’ dealing with the question of continuing reservation of seats under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) – Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to express through any media – That freedom can be subject only to those restrictions which are mentioned in Article 19(2) – Every unpopular idea need not necessarily be an idea which should be proscribed – Matter referred to a bench of three Judges.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special Leave granted. This case shall be posted for final hearing before a bench consisting of three Judges after summer vacation, subject to the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
2. On the question of interim order we have given our anxious consideration. It is found that the film in question ‘Ore Oru Gramathila’ deals with the question of continuing reservation of seats under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
3. The Central Board of Film Certification has approved the film and issued ‘U’ Certificate. A National Award has been awarded to the film by the concerned Jury consisting of eminent persons. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petitions dismissed them at the stage of preliminary hearing. Then we have Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression which includes freedom to express through any media. That freedom can be subject only to those restrictions which are mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Then we have Article 25 which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion which is subject only to the restrictions mentioned therein. Article 15(4) is only an exception to the doctrine of equality expounded in Article 15(1) and Article 16(4) is an exception to the equality clause relating to public employment incorporated in Article 16(1) and (2). These provisions in Article 15(4) and 16(4) are merely enabling provisions. In Vasant Kumar’s case, the learned Chief Justice has observed that the reservation under Article 15(4) and 16(4) should be reduced gradually and stopped altogether after 15 years. While all Indians have regard to all those who were members of the Constituent Assembly and should have respect for the Constitutional provisions they cannot be denied the privilege of critically examining the provisions of the Constitution and ask for its modifications. Every unpopular idea need not necessarily be an idea which should be proscribed.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court in this case appears to have highlighted the problem relating to public order likely to arise from the exhibition of the film. The State Government was not a party to the case in the High Court and is not a party to these appeals also.
5. Taking into consideration all aspects of the case we pass the following interim order. Pending notice of motion, the operation of the judgments of the Division Bench against which these appeals are filed is stayed subject to the condition that the public exhibition of the film in Tamil Nadu pending disposal of the application for interim orders shall not be done without further orders of this Court which shall be made after hearing the State Government. The State Government shall be implied as a party to these appeals. The State Government shall file an affidavit before the Court stating its opinion in this behalf.
6. The application for interim orders shall come up for further hearing before a bench of three Judges after vacation.
7. It is made clear that the award proposed in respect of the film may be distributed to the awardees, liberty to mention before the Hon’ble the chief Justice of India for a fixed date. Liberty to file additional documents.
1. Special Leave granted. This case shall be posted for final hearing before a bench consisting of three Judges after summer vacation, subject to the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
2. On the question of interim order we have given our anxious consideration. It is found that the film in question ‘Ore Oru Gramathila’ deals with the question of continuing reservation of seats under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
3. The Central Board of Film Certification has approved the film and issued ‘U’ Certificate. A National Award has been awarded to the film by the concerned Jury consisting of eminent persons. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petitions dismissed them at the stage of preliminary hearing. Then we have Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression which includes freedom to express through any media. That freedom can be subject only to those restrictions which are mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Then we have Article 25 which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion which is subject only to the restrictions mentioned therein. Article 15(4) is only an exception to the doctrine of equality expounded in Article 15(1) and Article 16(4) is an exception to the equality clause relating to public employment incorporated in Article 16(1) and (2). These provisions in Article 15(4) and 16(4) are merely enabling provisions. In Vasant Kumar’s case, the learned Chief Justice has observed that the reservation under Article 15(4) and 16(4) should be reduced gradually and stopped altogether after 15 years. While all Indians have regard to all those who were members of the Constituent Assembly and should have respect for the Constitutional provisions they cannot be denied the privilege of critically examining the provisions of the Constitution and ask for its modifications. Every unpopular idea need not necessarily be an idea which should be proscribed.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court in this case appears to have highlighted the problem relating to public order likely to arise from the exhibition of the film. The State Government was not a party to the case in the High Court and is not a party to these appeals also.
5. Taking into consideration all aspects of the case we pass the following interim order. Pending notice of motion, the operation of the judgments of the Division Bench against which these appeals are filed is stayed subject to the condition that the public exhibition of the film in Tamil Nadu pending disposal of the application for interim orders shall not be done without further orders of this Court which shall be made after hearing the State Government. The State Government shall be implied as a party to these appeals. The State Government shall file an affidavit before the Court stating its opinion in this behalf.
6. The application for interim orders shall come up for further hearing before a bench of three Judges after vacation.
7. It is made clear that the award proposed in respect of the film may be distributed to the awardees, liberty to mention before the Hon’ble the chief Justice of India for a fixed date. Liberty to file additional documents.
