http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/07/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) SEN, A.P. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1642            1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 486  1988 SCC  (3) 410        JT 1988 (3)    66  1988 SCALE  (2)34

ACT:      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).      Article 226 Public Interest Petition against exhibition of a  TV serial-Alleging  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?

HEADNOTE:      The T.V.  Serial ’Honi-Anhoni’  was being  telecast  by Doordarshan on  every Thursday  between 9.00  P.M. and  9.30 P.M.      A writ  petition was  filed 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  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  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 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 phenomenon. It was also submitted  that the  viewers were told that they should search for scientific reason whenever any unusual occurrence takes place.      Allowing the appeal, 487

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

^      HELD:1. Freedom  of expression  is  a  preferred  right which is always very zealously guarded by this Court. 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  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 newspaper, 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 the exhibition of the serial. But  they waited  till the  exhibition of  the  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  interim 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 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.] [490E] 488

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1523 of 1988.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  13.4.1988  of  the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 479 of 1988.      K.K.  Venugopal,   A.N.  Haksar,   S.  Vazifdar,  Raian Karanjawala, 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 Judgement 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

directing the  three respondents;  (I) 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. 1, Lokvidayan Sanghatana, a registered social organisation of  Pune having  its branch  at Aurangabad  and Respondent  No.   2  Mahila  Sangharsha  Samiti,  Aurangabad represented 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.      The serial  ’Honi-Anhoni’ was  being  telecast  by  the Doordarshan, which  was run  by the Union of India, on every Thursday between  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. Aggrieved by  the interim order passed by the High Court the appellant, 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 consideration on April 2  1, 1988.  After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant this  Court granted  special leave  to  prefer  an appeal against 489 the order  passed by  the High  Court and  also  stayed  the operation of the interim order dated 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 21st 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 expressed 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 unscientific  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 application  the  appellant  was impleaded as  a party  on 12.4.1988.  On 13.4.1988  the High Court passed the impugned order of temporary injunction. The appellant rushed  to this  Court immediately thereafter with the above  said special  leave petition.  The appellant  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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           request all  of  you  that  whenever  any  unusual           occurrencces takes place or a 490           seemingly   imporbable    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  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 newspapers, magazines,  advertisement 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 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:                "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 (1)           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 relations  with  foreign  States,  public           order, decency or moral 491           ity,  or   in  relation   to  contempt  of  court,           defamation or incitement to an offence.           ................................................."      Freedom of  expression is  a preferred  right which  is always very zealously guarded by this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    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 them 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 prejudicially the  well-being of  the people.  The Union  of India and  the Doordarshan  have pleaded that the serial was being telecast  after following the prescribed procedure and taking necessary  precaution. In  such a situation, the High Court should  not have  immediately proceeded  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 of  interim injunction  in this  case would 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. We are not satisfied that the exhibition  of the  serial in  question  was  likely  to endanger public  morality. In  the circumstances of the case the balance of convenience lay in favour of 492 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 a case of this nature will have to be dealt with in an appropriate case. We express no  opinion on those questions in this case. We are, however, of  the opinion that the High Court was in error in the present  case in issuing the interim order of injunction 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. 493