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.