Directorate General Doordarshan & Ors. Vs. Anand Patwardhan & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2001
Petitioner: Directorate General Doordarshan & Ors.
Respondent: Anand Patwardhan & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2001
Judges: V.N. KHARE & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 12, 2001
Head Note:
INFORMATION/BORADCASTING LAW
Constitution
Article 19(1)(a) – Television broadcasting – Featuring of docu-mentary film by Doordarshan – Rejection of film – Justification – Committee constituted by the Doordarshan authorities rejecting the documentary submitted by the respondents to be not suited for telecast – Committee, however not constituted in accordance with the guidelines framed for the purpose in as much as it did not comprise of a non-official expert. Held, since the constitution of the committee which rejected the film of the respondent was not in terms of the relevant guidelines, the rejection was invalid. Doordarshan directed to constitute a committee in accordance with the guidelines and the proposal of the respondent to be consid-ered by such committee within three months.
Held:
It is not disputed that the committee which considered the proposal of the respondent was not comprised of non-official expert as required under para 5(ii) of the guidelines. In that view of the matter, the judgment under challenge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition rejecting the proposal of the appellant for telecast of the film, are set aside. The appellant is directed to constitute a committee as required under para 5(ii) of the guidelines and thereafter, the committee so consti-tuted shall consider the proposal of the respondent within three months from the date of such constitution of the committee. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The respondent herein, is a documentary film maker, who sub-mitted a documentary film to the director of Doordarshan in the year 1995, for telecast on national network of Doordarshan. A committee which was constituted to consider the said proposal found that the said documentary film was not suitable for tele-cast purposes on Doordarshan. Accordingly, the appellant, by letter dated 20.8.99 declined to telecast the aforesaid documen-tary film on Doordarshan. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The order of the appellant was challenged, inter alia, on the ground, that the said order is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, that the impugned order violates the rights of the general public to seek informa-tion by watching the said documentary on Doordarshan and that no reason has been assigned as to why the said documentary film was not considered fit for telecast on Doordarshan. The Bombay High Court, after hearing the matter was of the view that the respon-dent’s film if judged in its entirety, has a theme and message to convey and, therefore, the view taken by the Doordarshan that the film was not suitable for telecast on Doordarshan was erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to telecast the respon-dent’s film (‘Father, Son and Holy War’) within six weeks. It is against the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, the appell-ant has preferred this appeal.
2. When the matter was being argued by learned additional solicitor general, learned counsel appearing for the respondent took an additional point to sustain the judgment under appeal. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the committee which considered the proposal of the respondent, was not validly constituted as required under the guidelines issued by the ap-pellant, and, therefore, the decision taken by the said committee was without jurisdiction. On the said argument of learned counsel for the respondent, learned additional solicitor general stated that the appellant has no objection if after setting aside the judgment under appeal and decision of the committee, the proposal of the respondent is considered afresh by a committee, as required to be constituted under para 5(ii) of the guidelines. Para 5(ii) of the guidelines provides for constitution of a committee for considering the proposal for telecast of the films. The committee to be so constituted requires that there should be at least three non-official experts – one of whom will be a lady member drawn from time to time by the government. It is not disputed that the committee which considered the proposal of the respondent was not comprised of non-official expert as re-quired under para 5(ii) of the guidelines. In that view of the matter, the judgment under challenge as well as the order im-pugned in the writ petition rejecting the proposal of the respondent for telecast of the film are set aside. The appellant is directed to constitute a committee as required under para 5(ii) of the guidelines and thereafter, the committee so constituted shall consider the proposal of the respondent within three months from the date of such constitution of the committee.
3. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The respondent herein, is a documentary film maker, who sub-mitted a documentary film to the director of Doordarshan in the year 1995, for telecast on national network of Doordarshan. A committee which was constituted to consider the said proposal found that the said documentary film was not suitable for tele-cast purposes on Doordarshan. Accordingly, the appellant, by letter dated 20.8.99 declined to telecast the aforesaid documen-tary film on Doordarshan. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The order of the appellant was challenged, inter alia, on the ground, that the said order is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, that the impugned order violates the rights of the general public to seek informa-tion by watching the said documentary on Doordarshan and that no reason has been assigned as to why the said documentary film was not considered fit for telecast on Doordarshan. The Bombay High Court, after hearing the matter was of the view that the respon-dent’s film if judged in its entirety, has a theme and message to convey and, therefore, the view taken by the Doordarshan that the film was not suitable for telecast on Doordarshan was erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to telecast the respon-dent’s film (‘Father, Son and Holy War’) within six weeks. It is against the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, the appell-ant has preferred this appeal.
2. When the matter was being argued by learned additional solicitor general, learned counsel appearing for the respondent took an additional point to sustain the judgment under appeal. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the committee which considered the proposal of the respondent, was not validly constituted as required under the guidelines issued by the ap-pellant, and, therefore, the decision taken by the said committee was without jurisdiction. On the said argument of learned counsel for the respondent, learned additional solicitor general stated that the appellant has no objection if after setting aside the judgment under appeal and decision of the committee, the proposal of the respondent is considered afresh by a committee, as required to be constituted under para 5(ii) of the guidelines. Para 5(ii) of the guidelines provides for constitution of a committee for considering the proposal for telecast of the films. The committee to be so constituted requires that there should be at least three non-official experts – one of whom will be a lady member drawn from time to time by the government. It is not disputed that the committee which considered the proposal of the respondent was not comprised of non-official expert as re-quired under para 5(ii) of the guidelines. In that view of the matter, the judgment under challenge as well as the order im-pugned in the writ petition rejecting the proposal of the respondent for telecast of the film are set aside. The appellant is directed to constitute a committee as required under para 5(ii) of the guidelines and thereafter, the committee so constituted shall consider the proposal of the respondent within three months from the date of such constitution of the committee.
3. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
