Holding

Doordarshan cannot deny telecast of an award‑winning documentary merely because part of it is "A" certified; such a blanket policy constitutes an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Summary

The documentary "Father, Son and Holy War" produced by Anand Patwardhan, dealing with oppression of women, masculinity, and communal violence, was submitted to Doordarshan for telecast in 1995. Doordarshan refused, citing an internal circular that barred the telecast of any film certified "A" by the Central Board of Film Certification. The Bombay High Court directed Doordarshan to air the film, prompting Doordarshan to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the reasonableness test under Article 19(2), applying the established obscenity test and emphasizing that a film must be judged in its entirety. It held that Doordarshan's policy, being a non‑statutory internal guideline, could not override the filmmaker's right to convey his message, especially given the film's award‑winning status and lack of any likelihood of public disorder. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the documentary to be telecast.

Issues considered

Whether a film producer has a right to compel Doordarshan to telecast his film
Whether the High Court was justified in directing telecast of a film certified U/A despite Doordarshan's policy against "A" certified films
Whether Doordarshan's policy of not telecasting adult films violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
Whether a High Court can substitute its opinion for that of the competent authority regarding the fitness of a film for public telecast
Whether the restriction imposed by Doordarshan is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and whether the film is obscene under Sections 292 and 293 of the IPC

Legislation cited

Cinematograph Act, 1952
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 292, s. 293

Subjects

Freedom of expressionArticle 19CensorshipDocumentary filmDoordarshanA certificationObscenityPublic orderConstitutional lawInternal guidelines

Judgment

DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF A
DOORDARSHAN AND ORS.
v.
ANAND PATWARDHAN

AUGUST 25, 2006
B
[DR. AR LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles !9(I)(a) and 19(2)-DocumentG/y fil1JJ--Given U/A certificate C
by Central Board of Film Certification-Tele-casting of on National Channel
of Doordarshan-Refusal on the ground that its telecast would be violative of
policy of Doordarshan not to telecast 'A 'certified film-Held, the documentary
film producer has a right to covey his perception on the oppression of women,
flawed understanding of manhood and evils of communal violence through the D
film produced by him-Scenes in the film must be seen in the context of its
message and must be evaluated in its entirety-The film does not create any
law and order problem and falls within the l!mits prescribed by the
Constitution-Basic guidelines on the test of obscenity laid down-Reluctance
ofDoordarshan in telecasting the film deprecated-Indian Penal Code, 1860-
ss. 292 and 293-Cinematograph Act, 1952. E
Respondent No. 1 made a <l_ocumentary film named as 'Father, Son
and Holy War'. The first part of the film depicted the problems faced by
Hindu and Muslim women within their own religions and dealt with the
social realities and issues such as patriarchy, violence, fundamentalism, F
suppression of women etc.; and the second part thereof was with regard
to values of manhood and displayed the inner psyche of men and how they
got socialized into believing that violence was desirable. The first part of
the documentary was given 'U' certificate and the second part thereof was
given" A" certificate by the Film Censor Board. The respondent submitted
his documentary film to Doordarshan for telecast on its National network G
in 1995, but the Doordarshan refused to telecast the film in view of its
circular dated 14.8.1996 stating that Doorda_rshan would not telecast any
'A' certified feature film. This led to a litigation between the parties which
went upto the Supreme Court. Thereupon, the film was screened by

403 H
404 SUPREME COL!RT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A different Olmmittccs. Ultimately a larger Committee recommended the
screening of the documentary film on Doordarshan. However, the Prasar
Bharati Board pre-reviewed the film and opined that it contained scenes
which could promote violence, its production quality was unsatisfactory
and its telecast would be violative of the policy of Doordarshan not to
B screen" A" certified films. The respondent again filed a writ petition before
the Bombay High Court which directed the Doordarshan to exhibit the
film. Aggrieved, the Doordarshan filed the present appeal.

The Court viewed the screening of the documentary film.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: I. I. 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 is highly irrational
and incorrect. The documentary was given two awards in 42nd National
D film festival, 1995 conducted by Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India as 'Best Investigative Film' and 'Best
Film on Social Issues'. The view of 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
E masculinity and the violence it legitimises. The second committee said that
it was a very good film and must be shown. Ordinarily the decision of the
screening 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. 1413-B-F)

F 1.2. 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, it would not be proper to deny telecast of an award winning
documentary merely on the ground that the second part of the
G documentary is certified as "A" by the Censor Board. A documentary
cannot be denied exhibition on Doordarshan simply on account of its" A"
certification or "UA" certification. 1443-G-Hl

1.3. The fil:n no doubt deals with the communal violence. But, the
attempt of the film maker is to portray the miseries of the innocent victims
H of the communal riots. The sequences in the film convey an obvious
DIRECTOR GENERAL. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF OOORDARSHAN \'. ANAND PAT\\' ARDllAN 40 5

message of communal harmony. The message of the filmmaker cannot be A
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 B
likely to incite commission of an offence. 1412-F-H; 413-A-BI
•
2.1. 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 C
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. 1414-C-D)

2.2. TPle law relating to obscenity is laid down in ss.292 and 293 of
the Indian Penal {:ode which is so vague that it becomes difficult to apply D
it. Under the present ss.292 and 293 of the Indian Penal Code, there is a
danger of publication meant for public good or for bo1iajide purpose of
science, literature, art or any other branch of learning, being declared as
obscene literature as there is no specific provision in the IPC for exempting
them from operations of those sections. It is important that where bodies
exercise discretion, which may interfere in the enjoyment of constitutional E
rights, that discretion must be subject to adequate law. The effect of
provisions granting broad discretionary regulatory powers is unforeseeable
and they are open to arbitrary abuse. 1414·.0-H; 415; 415-A)

Samaresh Bose & Anr. v. Amal Mitra & Anr., 11985) 4 SCC 284, F
referred to.

2.3. The test of obscenity is, 'whether the tendency of the matter
• charged as obscene 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. The basic guidelines must be: G
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community
standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest;

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a.patently offensive way, H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
..
A 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. 1415-E; 416-B-DI

2.4. The correct approach to be taken here is to look at the
B 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
-
C
seeking to cater to the prurient interests in any person. Therefore, 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 film, 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. (413-A-B; F)

D Bobby Art International & Ors. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors., (1996)
4 SCC 1; K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr., [1970) 2 SCC 780; UOI
v. Cinemart Foundation, [199213 SCC 637 and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram & Ors., [19891 2 SCC 574, relied on.

3.1. The respondent has a right to convey his perception on the
E oppression of women, flawed understanding of manhood and evils of
communal violence through the documentary film produced by him.
Ho~ever, the right guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution is subject
to 'reasonable restriction' which corresponds (o 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
F Constitution. Communal riots, caste and class issues and violence against
women are issues that require every citizen's attention for a feasible
solution. This documentary film showcases a real picture cf crime and
violence against women and members of various religious groups
perpetrated by politically motivated leaders for political, social and
G personal gains. (416-F-H; 417-A; 419-CI

3.2. This film 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 pruri~nt interests in an average person, applying
H contemporary community standards while taking the work as a whole, the
DIRECTOR GEN., DIRECTORATE GEN. OF DOORDARSHAN "·ANAND PATWARDHAN 407
- work is not patently offensive and does not proceed to deprave and corrupt A
any average Indian citizen's mind. 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. (417-B; 419-E]
B
3.3. 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 expression C
to a citizen.

K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr., (1970] 2 SCC 780 and
Ramesh v. Union of India, [1988] 1 SCC 668, referred to.

4. The High Court viewed the film for itself which is a process
followed innumerable times before even by this Court in cases concerning D
the official media to satisfy itself that 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. The High Court has only corrected the failure of
Doordarshan to follow through with their own decision making process E
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. Doordarshan being a National
Channel, controls airwaves, which are public property. The right of the
people to be informed calls for channelizing and streamlining F
Doordarshan 's control over the national telecast media vehicle.
[419-G-H; 420-A-B]

5. Doordarshan all through the present matter has been displaying
a sad reluctance in telecasting this film, which was made almost ten years
ago. Doordarshan has not been telecasting many films inspite of them G
being award winning films at the national and international level. In
addition Doordarshan has been finding flimsy excuses time and again as
is cleat 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 is highly irrational and
is blatant violation of the right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a) of the H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Constitution. This hehavior of Doordarshan would justify the Court in
stating that Doordarshan is being dictated by rules of malafides and
arbitrariness in taking decisions with regard to the telecast of respondent's
film. [420-B-EI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 613 of2005.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2004 of the High Court of
Bombay in Civil Writ No. 2863/2003.

Rajeev Shanna and Vijay M. Chauhan for the Appellants.

C Prashant Bhushan, Vishal Gupta, Rohit Kumar Singh, Sumeet Sharma,
Parnl Kaun and Indra Unnianyar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The appellant in the present matter is
D Doordarshan who have decided not to telecast the documentary film made by
th.: 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 \Var", to the appellant for telecast on National network
Doordarshan. Respondent no. I was to provide a U-matic Certificate for the
E 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.
F A few lines about the film and the producer:-

Fall.er, Son and Holy War is the third part of a trilogy of documentary
films against communal violence that the author made from the mid 1980s
.
to the mid 1990s. His two earlier films In Memory of Friends (1990) (on
G building communal peace in strife torn Punjab) and Ram Ke Naamlln 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
H telecasts were well received.
DIRECTOR GEN., DIRECTORATE GEN. OF DOOROARSHAN '"ANAND PATWARDHAN [LAKSllMANAN, J.J 409

Father, Son and Holy War ( 1995) was also shot during this period. It A
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 and
the idea that women were property. It is common know ledge that very often B
sexual violence against women accompanies communal riots. This may be
because the "enemy's" women are seen as his prope11y an.cl 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. C
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 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 D
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 E
• Doordarshan will not telecast any 'A' ce1tified 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.I, filed a writ pet1t1on before the F
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 G
to preview the documentary film produced by respondent no. I. 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 H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A minds of the viewers ... " This decision of the Selection Committee was
communicated to the respondents on 20.8.1998.

Against this the respondent no. I approached Bombay High Court. A
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ and directed the
appellant to telecast the respondent no. I documentary film "Father, son and
B 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
C 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.

D 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 ... however, the film
contains scenes and speeches, which can influence negative passions .... and
the committee would like a larger committee with representatives of religion
E 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
F 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 documentary film contained scenes
which could promote violence, its production quality was unsatisfactory and
G its telecast would be violative ofthe policy ofthe Doordarshan ofnot screening
"A" certified movies. This decision of Doordarshan was communicated to the
respondent no.I on 18.7.2003.

A contempt petition was filed by respondent no. I alleging the
H disobedience of the order of the High Court dated 12.12.200 I. The High
Court disposed off the petition by holding that the respondent was aggrieved
DIRECTOR GEN. DIRECTORATE GEN. OF DOORDARSHAN '"· ANAND PAT\\' ARD HAN (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 411

of the decision of Prasar Bharati Board and it was open to him to challenge A
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 1 or ll within 12 weeks from the date
of the judgment on a convenient day and time as fixed by Doordarshan. It B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 comers of the country. It has
F
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 I </(I)( a) G
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 H
412 SllPkE\1E COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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 struck
down as grossly violating the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19( I)(a)
of the Constitution.
B
In view of the rival submissions. the following substantial questions of
law arise for adjudication by this Court.

(a) Whether any film producer has a right to insist that his film must
be shown on Doordarshan?
c (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
D can be said to be violative of A1ticle 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?

E 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
F to appreciate the view taken by the Prasar Bharti 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
G 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
H re-building the destroyed home of his Hindu neighbour. The message of the -
DIKECTORGEN. DIRECTOR.HE GEN. OF DOORDARSIHN "·ANAND l'ATll'ARDHAN [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 4 JJ

filmmaker cannot be gathered by viewing only certain portions of the film in A
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 B
unsatisfactory production quality ~nd 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 C
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 D
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 of the selection E
committee in all cases shall be final as per para S(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 F
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 G
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 DDordarshan simply on account of it's "A" certification
or "UA" certification. Mr. Rajeev Shanna made an attempt to object to certain H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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:
c 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 I9(2) it also makes it clear that the State may
D 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.

E 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 bonajide 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.

F 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
G 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
H constitutional rights, that discretion must be subject to adequate law. The
DIRECTOR GEN., DIRECTORATE GEN. OF DOORDARSHAN "· ANAND PATWARDHAN [LAKSHMANAN. J ] 4 J5
effect of provisions granting broad discretionary regulatory powers is A
unforeseeable and they are open to arbitrary abuse.

In Samaresh Bose and Anr. v. Amal Mitra and 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 B
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 C
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." D
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 E
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.'
F
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.' G
The precise meaning of "obscene" is, however, decidedly ambi6uous. 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 H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120(1<>1 SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A finJ that the subject matter taken as a whole appeal> to the prurient interest;
the subject matter depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct of a type described in th is section: and the subject matter, taken as
a whole. lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific
value.

B Th~refore, one can observe that. the basic guidelines for the tier of fact
must be:

(a) whtther "the average person, applying contemporary community
standarJs" wou Id find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest..... ;
c
(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. Jacks serious literary, artistic
D political, or sci.:111ific value.

The Constitution of 'ndia guarantees everyone the right to freedom of
expression. India is a;,c a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and therefore bound to respect the right to freedom of
expression guaranked by Article 19 thereof, which states:
E
I. Everyone shall have the right to ho1d 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
F art, or through any other media of his choice.

This rizht 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.

G 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 Constitutior;al. Communal riots, caste and class issues and violence
against women are issues that require every citizen's attention for a feasible
H solution. Only the citizens especially the youth of our Nation who are correctly
DIRECTOR GEN., DIRECTORATE GEN. OF OOORDARSHAN 1•. ANAND Pr\T\V:\RDfL\N rtAKS\l\1ANr\N. J.] 4} 7

informed can arrive at a correct solution. This documentary film in our A
considered opinion showcases a real picture of crime and violence against
women and members of varim1s 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
pr1,·;ision nor will create any law and order problems as the Doordarshan B
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.
c
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 D
to reactions by organized groups. ln 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 E
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
ce1tificate, 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 F
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 v. The Union of
India & Anr.. [l 970] 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 v. G
Union of India, [1988] I SCC 668 this court has observed that, " .... that the
effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong
minded, firm and courageous men, and not 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 uf exhibition of H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 and
Ors., [ 1996] 4 SCC I, 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
p 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 VO! v. Cinemart
G Foundation, [1992] 3 sec 637, it was held that m~rely 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
H conservative outlook, but must be responsive to change and must go with the
· DIRECTOR GEN., DIRECTORATE GEN. OF DOORDARSHAN ''· ANAND PATWARDHAN [LAKSHMANAN, J] 4J9

current climate. The state cannot prevent open discussion, however hateful A
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. I
has won many National and International awards. The documentary film won
National Awards in two categories viz. "Best Investigative Film" and "Best B
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. C
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 D
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 E
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. F
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 G
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
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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 is highly
irrational and is blatant violation of the right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(a)
of the Constitution. This behavior of Doordarshan would justify us in stating
that Doordarshan is being dictated by rules of ma/ajides and arbitrariness in
E taking decisions with regard to the telecast of the resp()ndents film.
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.

F 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. I or 2 within
G 8 weeks from today on such convenient date and time as may be fixed by
Doordarshan.

RP. Appeal dismissed.