Ramesh S/o Chotalal Dalal Vs. Union of India and Ors.
EmailAppeal: (1989 SUPP (2) SCC 288)
Petitioner: Ramesh S/o Chotalal Dalal
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Apeal: (1989 SUPP (2) SCC 288)
Judges: SABYASACHI MIKHERJEE & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 01, 1988
Head Note:
T.V. SERIAL “TAMAS”:
Exhibition of T.V. Serial “TAMAS” does not affect any fundamental right or likely to affect any fundemental right – Petition dismissed – Judgment to follow.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This is petition under Art 32 of the Constitution filed by a lawyer in public interest seeking to ban the exhibition of T.V. serial “Tamas”, on the ground that it offends or likely to offend public order adn public morality and create public danger. Detailed arguments have been advanced before us. We proposeto consider the detailed arguments in a judgment which will be deliered shortly. We state, however, our conclusion and pass the following order:
2. We dismiss this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution because we are satisfied on the evidence of the Board of Censors as well as the view expressed by the two learned Judges of the High Court in Appeal No. 96/88 arising out of W.P. No. 201/88 entitiled “GOVIND NIHILANI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.”, which is also before us in the Special leave petition, that the effect is not likely to affect public order or the commission of any offence. We dismiss the Special leave petition. We are also of the opinion, having considered the facts and the circumstances of this case, this case is not a fit case for interference under Art 32 of the Constitution. It does not affect any fundamental right or likely to affect any fundamental right, No. order as to costs.
petition dismissed.
1. This is petition under Art 32 of the Constitution filed by a lawyer in public interest seeking to ban the exhibition of T.V. serial “Tamas”, on the ground that it offends or likely to offend public order adn public morality and create public danger. Detailed arguments have been advanced before us. We proposeto consider the detailed arguments in a judgment which will be deliered shortly. We state, however, our conclusion and pass the following order:
2. We dismiss this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution because we are satisfied on the evidence of the Board of Censors as well as the view expressed by the two learned Judges of the High Court in Appeal No. 96/88 arising out of W.P. No. 201/88 entitiled “GOVIND NIHILANI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.”, which is also before us in the Special leave petition, that the effect is not likely to affect public order or the commission of any offence. We dismiss the Special leave petition. We are also of the opinion, having considered the facts and the circumstances of this case, this case is not a fit case for interference under Art 32 of the Constitution. It does not affect any fundamental right or likely to affect any fundamental right, No. order as to costs.
petition dismissed.
