Holding

A State‑owned corporation cannot arbitrarily refuse publication or telecast of material protected by Article 19(1)(a) unless it can demonstrably satisfy the statutory restrictions of Article 19(2) and the Cinematograph Act, and therefore the High Courts' orders were affirmed.

Summary

The petitioners, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and Doordarshan, appealed against High Court orders directing LIC to publish a rejoinder to a criticism of its premium policy in its magazine and directing Doordarshan to telecast a documentary on the Bhopal gas disaster. The issues were whether a State‑owned corporation could arbitrarily refuse publication in an in‑house magazine, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and whether Doordarshan could refuse telecast of a film that had a U‑certificate and a national award without satisfying the statutory guidelines under the Cinematograph Act and Article 19(2). The Supreme Court held that LIC, as a State entity, could not deny publication without reasonable justification and that Doordarshan could not deny telecast unless it could show the film contravened the statutory principles. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Courts' directions, dismissed both appeals, and ordered LIC to publish the rejoinder with an apology and Doordarshan to telecast the film.

Issues considered

Whether LIC, a State corporation, can refuse to publish a rejoinder in its magazine without violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(a).
Whether the refusal to publish the rejoinder is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
Whether Doordarshan, a State‑controlled broadcaster, can refuse to telecast a documentary that has a U‑certificate and a national award without breaching the guidelines of the Cinematograph Act and Article 19(2).
Whether the guidelines issued under Section SB of the Cinematograph Act have the force of law for the purpose of imposing restrictions on freedom of speech.

Legislation cited

Cinematograph Act, 1952s. Section 9, s. Section SA, s. Section SB, s. Section SC, s. Section SD
Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 19(2)
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956s. Section 6(1)

Subjects

Freedom of speech and expressionArticle 19Article 14State-owned corporationPrior restraintCinematograph ActDoordarshanMagazine publicationDocumentary filmFairness doctrinePublic funds

Judgment

--r LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
A

PROF. MANUBHAI D. SHAH ETC. ETC.

JULY 22, 1992

[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.) B

Constitution of India, 1950: Part Ill-Fundamental Rights-Article
19(1)(a) & 19(2).

C
-
Freedom of Speech and Expression-Scope of-lncludes freedom to I

circulate and propagate views through electronics media subject to reasonable
restrictions-R.ight extends to use the media to answer the criticism levelled
against the propagated view.

Publication of a research paper by Executive Trustee of Consumt{r
Education and Research Centre-l'aper criticising premium policy adopted by D
Life Insurance Corporation-Counter prepared by a membe" of LIC as well
as rejoinder prepared by Executive Trustee Published in a newspaper-L1C
also publishing its counter in its own magazine-Refusal to publish Executive
Trustee's rejoinder in its magazine on the ground that it was In - House
magazine-Held refusal by LIC to publish rejoinder in its magazine was E
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(a).

Freedom of expression through movies-Film-Right to telecast on
television-Guidelines for film certificatiott-Documentary film on Bhop~l
Gas Disaster-Film awarded national award and granted 'U' Certifi-
cate-Refusal by Doordarshan to telecast the film-Held film maker has a F
right to telecast the film-Refusal to telecast should be justified by law under
Article 19(2)--0nus lies on the party who refuses to telecast to show that the
film does not confonn to requirements of law--Grounds of refusal held not
justified-Doordarshan being State controlled agency cannot refuse telecast of
film except on valid grounds. G

Article 12-State--Life Insurance Corporation is State.

Constitution-Interpretation of-Provisions should be construed broad-
ly unless the context otherwise requires-Scope of provisions, particularly
Fumlamental Rights should not be cut down by restricted approach. H
595
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992)3 S.C.R.

A Doctrine of Fairness.

Doctrine of Prior Restraint.

Cinematograph Act, 1952: Sections SA-SB.

B The respondent, the executive trustee of the Consumer Education &
Research Centre Ahmedabad, after undertaking research into the working
of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)published and circulated a study
paper titled "A fraud on policy holders-a shocking story" portraying the
'r
discriminatory practice adopted by the LIC which adversely affected the
C interest of a large number of policy holders. The underlying idea was to
point out that unduly high premiums were charged by the LIC from those
taking out life insurance policies thereby denying access to insurance
coverage to a vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay the high
-
premiums. A member of the LIC prepared a counter to the respondent's
study paper and published tbe same as an article titled 'LIC and its policy
D holders' in the "Hindu", a daily newspaper, challenging the conclusions
reached by the respondent in his study paper. The respondent prepared a
rejoinder 'Raw deal for Policy Holders' which too was published in the
same newspaper.

E Thereafter, the LIC published its member's article which was in the
nature of a counter to the respondent's study paper in its magazine
'Yogakshema'. On the respondent learning about the same, he requested
that in fairness his rejoinder which was already published in the Hindu
should also be published in the said magazine to present a complete
picture to the reader. The LIC refused his request on the ground that their
F magazine was an in-house magazine circulated amongst subscribers who
were policy holders, officers, employees and agents of the Corporation and
it is not put up in the market for sale to the general public.

The respondent filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court which
came to the conclusion that the LIC's stand that the magazine was an
G in-house magazine was untenable because it was available to anyone on
payment of subscription; and it invited articles for publication therein
from members of the public. Assuming that the magazine was an in-house
magazine the corporation, which was a State within the meaning of Article
12, cannot under the guise of publication of an in-house magazine violate
H the fundamental right of the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH 597

that refusal by LIC to publish respondent's rejoinder was arbitrary and A
violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(a). Against the decision orthe High Court
~-(
this appeal is filed.

In the connected appeal the respondent produced a documentary
film on the Bhopal Gas Disaster titled "Beyond Genocide" which was B
awarded the Golden Lotus, being the best non-feature film of 1987. At the
time of the presentation of awards .the Central Minister for Information
& Broadcasting made a declaration that the award winning short films
would be telecast on Doordarshan. The respondent submitted his film to
Doordarshan for telecast but Doordarshan refused to telecast the same on
the grounds that (i) the film was out dated (ii) it had lost its relevance (iii) C
it lacked moderation and restraint (iv) it was not fair and balanced (v)

- political parties have raised various issues concerning the tragedy and (vi)
claims for compensation by victims were sub-judice.

The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to D
telecasi his film on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan
to telecast the same. The Union of India contested the petition "by stating
that although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnightly telecast
of award winning documentaries, no decision was taken to telecast all
national award winning documentaries; that the parameters applied for E
selection of a film for national award were not the same as applied by the
Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of a film for
telecast; and the respondent's film which was previewed by a duly con-
stituted Screening Committee was not found to meet the requirements for
telecast on Doordarshan. The High Court held that no restriction could F
be placed on the fundamental right quaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution save and except by law permitted by Article 19(2); that the
respondent's right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution obligated
Doordarshan to telecast the film since the guidelines or norms on which
the refusal was based were purely executive in character and not law within
the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, it directed G
Doordarshan to telecast the film, "Beyond Genocide" at a time and date
convenient to it keeping in view the public interest and on such terms and
conditions as it would like to impose in accordance with law.

In appeal to this Court it was contended for Doordarshan, (i) that H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A sub-section (2) of Section SB of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 empowers
the Central Government to issue directions setting out the principles
which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under the
Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition and since the exemption
granted to Doordarshan under Section 9 of the Act from the provisions
relating to <::ertification of films in Part II of the Act and Rules made
B thereunder by notification dated 16th October, 1984 is subject to the
condition that while clearing programmes for telecast Doordarshan shall
keep in view the film certification guidelines issued by the Central Govern-
ment under Section SB of the Act, the guidelines clearly have statutory
flavour and would, therefore, fall within the protective umbrella of Article
c 19(2); (ii) the High Court completely misdirected itself in not appreciating
that these norms wer-e f1Xed keeping in mind the requirement of Section
SB of the Act which section was consistent with Article 19(2), therefore the
High Court was wrong in brushing them aside as mere departmental
executive directions.
-
D Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1. A constitutional Provision is never static, it is ever evolving
and ever changing and, therefore, does not admit of a narrow, pedantic or
syllogistic approach. The Constitution makers employed a broad phraseol-
E ogy while drafting the fundamental rights so that they may be able to cater
to the needs of a changing society. Therefore, constitutional provisions in
general and fundamental rights in particular must be broadly construed
unless the context otherwise requires. The scope and ambit of such
provisions, in particular the fundamental rights, should not be cut down
by too astute or too restricted an approach. [606E, 607E-F]
F
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 842 A.l.R.
1962 S.C. 305, referred to.

Dennis v; United States, 341 U.S. 494; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, \.
G 343 U.S. 495 and Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, ,
236 U.S. 230, referred to.

2. The words 'freedom of speech and expression' must be broadly
construed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth T-
or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, in-
H eludes the right to propagate one's views through the print media or
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH 599

through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. A
The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role of public
educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy democracy. Every citizen of this
free country, therefore, has the right to air his or her views through the
printing and/or the electronic media subject of course to permissible
restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The right
extends to the citizen being permitted to use the media to answer the
B
criticism levelled against the view propagated by him. [607 G-H, 608 A,EJ ·

Romesh Tappar v. The State of Madras, [1950) S.C.R. 495; Sakal
Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1962) 3 S.C.R. 842-A.I.R.1962 S.C. 305;
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc. etc. v~ Union of C
India &· Ors. etc. etc., [1985) 2 S.C.R. 287; Odyssey Communications Pvt.

- Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana & Ors., [1988) 3 S.C.C. 410 and S. Ran-
garajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, [1989) 2 S.C.C. 574, referred to.

3. No serious exception can be taken to the approach which com-
mended to the High Court. The LIC is a State within the meaning of Article D
12 of the Constitution. It is created under an Act, namely, the Life In-
surance Corporation Act, 1956, which requires that it should function in
the best interest of the community. The community is, therefore, entitled
to know whether or not this requirement of the statute is being satisfied
in the functioning of the LIC. The respondent's effort in preparing the E
study paper was to bring to the notice of the community that the LIC had
strayed from its path by pointing out that its premium rates were unduly
high when they could be low if the LIC avoided wasteful h.dulgences. The
endeavour was to enlighten the community of the drawbacks and·
shortcomings of the corporation and to pin-point the areas where improve-
ment was needed and was possible. By denying information to the con- F
somers as well as other subscribers that LIC cannot be said to be acting
in the best interest of the community. [6UA, E-H, 613 A,D]

Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh, [1975) 1 S.C.C. 421,
relied on. 1
G
4. By refusing to print and publish the rejoinder the LIC had violated
the respondent's fundamental right. The rejoinder to their acticle is not in
any manner prejudicial to the members of the community nor it is based
on imaginery or concocted material. It does not contain any material which
can be branded as offensive, in the sense that it would fall within anyone H
):
/

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A of the restrictive clauses of Article 19(2). That being so on the fairness
doctrine the LIC was u.nder an obligation to publish the rejoinder since it
had published its counter to the study paper. (614-C, 613-D, 612A, 613-E]

5. The LI C's refusal to publish the rejoinder in its magazine financed
from public funds is an attitude which can be described as both unfair and
B unreasonable; unfair because fairness demanded that both view points
were placed before the readers, however, limited be their number, to enable
them to draw their own conclusions and unreasonable because there was
no logic or proper justification for refusing publication. A monopolistic
state instrumentality which survives on public funds cannot act in an
C arbitrary manner on the specious plea that the magazine is an in- house
one and· it is a matter of its exclusive privilege to print or refuse to print
the rejoinder. [613 B-D]

6. A wrong doer cannot be heard to say that its persistent refusal to
--
print and publish the article must yield the desired result, namely to
D frustrate the respondent. The Court must be careful to see that it does not,
even unwittingly, aid the effort to defeat a party's right. However, in order
that the reader knows and appreciates why the rejoinder has appeared
after such long years it is directed that the LIC will, while publishing the
rejoinder print an explanation and an apology for the delay. [614 C-D]
E
7. Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being
conveys his thoughts, sentiments and feelings to others. Freedom of speech
and expression is thus a natural right which a human being acquires on
birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right. Thus freedom to air one's views
is the life line of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle,
F suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to democracy and
would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. Efforts by intolerant
authorities to curb or suffocate this freedom have always been firmly
repelled. More so when public authorities have betrayed autocratic tenden·
cies. [605G, 608-B, 611E]
G Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), referred to.

8. The feedom conferred on a citizen by Article 19(l)(a) includes the
freedom to communicate one's ideas or thoughts through a newspaper, a >--
magazine or a movie. Although movie enjoys that freedom it must be
H remembered that movie is a powerful mode of communication and has the
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH 601

capacity to make a profound impact on the minds of the viewers and it is, A
therefore, essential to ensure that the meassage it conveys is not harmful
to the society or even a section of the society. Censorship by prior restraint,
therefore, seems justified for the protection of the society from the ill-ef-
fects that a motion picture may produce if unrestricted exhibition is
allowed. Censorship is thus permitted to protect social interests
enumerated in Article 19(2) and section SB of the Cinematograph Act. B!ut
B
such censorship must be reasonable and must answer the test of Article
14 of the Constitution. (623 E-G]

9. Once it is recognised that a film-maker has a fundamental right
under Article 19(1) (a) to exhibit his film, the party which claims that it C
was entitled to refuse enforcement of this right by virtue of law made under

- Article 19(2), the onus lies on that party to show that the film did not
conform to the requirements of that law, in the present case the guidelin~s
relied upon. (620 D-E]
D
10. The respondent had a right to convey his perception of the gas
disaster in Bhopal through the documentary film prepared by him. 'fhe
film not only won the Golden Lotus award but was also granted the 'U'
Certificate by the censors. It is an appraisal of what exactly transpired in
Bhopal on the date the gas leak occurred. Therefore, the respondent
cannot be accused of having distorted the events subsequent to the dis- E
aster. (624 E-F]

Merely because it is critical of the State Government is no reason to
deny selection and exhibition of the film. So also pendency of claims for
compensation does not render the matter sub-judice so as to shut out the F
entire film from the community. In fact the community was keen to know
what actual_!f had happened, what is happening, what remedial measures
the State authorities are taking and what are the likely consequences Of
the gas leak. To bring out the inadequacy of the. State effort or the
indifference of ·the officers, etc,. cannot amount to an attack on any
political party if the criticism is genuine and objective and made in good G
faith. If the norm for appraisal was the same as applied by the censors
while granting the 'U' Certificate, it is difficult to understand how Door-
darshan could refuse to exhibit it. It is not that it was not sent for being
telecast soon after the disaster that one could say that it is outdated or
has lost relevance. [624 G-H, 625 A-BJ ' H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A In the circumstances it cannot be said that the film
was not consis-
tent with the accepted norms. Doordarshan being a State controlled agency
funded by public funds could not have denied access to the screen to the
respondent except on valid grounds. [625-C]

KA.Abbasv. The Union of India, [1971) 2 S.C.R. 446;Ramesh v. The
B Union of India, [1988) 1 S.C.C. 668 and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram,
[1989) 2 S.C.C. 574, relied on.

New York Times Company v. The United States, 403 U.S. 713, referred
to.
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1254 of
1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.80 of the Gujarat High
-
Court in Special Civil Application No.2711 of 1979.
D WITH

Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.90 of the Delhi High Court
E · in Civil Writ Petition No.212 of 1989.
K.T.S. Tutsi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, Kailash Vasdev,
Ms. Alpana Kirpal, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for

--
the Appellants.

P.H. Parekh, B.K. Brar, Ashok Aggarwal and P.O. Sharma for t\le
F Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AHMADI, J. Special leave granted in SLP(C) No.339of199L
G These two appeals though arising out of different circumstances and
concerning different parties, relate to the scope of our constitutional policy
of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. The importance of the constitution~ question prompted this
Court to grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
H We may properly begin the discussion of this judgment by stating the .
.\.
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.] 603

factual background of the two cases in the light of which we are required A
to examine the scope of the constitutional liberty of speech and expression.
~
Civil Appeal No.1254/80 arises out of the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2711 of 1979 decided by a
Division Bench on 17th June, 1980. The respondent, the executive trustee B
of the Consumer Education & Research Centre (CERC), Ahmedabad,
after undertaking research into the working of the Life Insurance Corpora-
tion (LIC) published on 10th July, 1978 a study paper titled "A fraud on
policy holders - a shocking story". This study paper portrayed the dis-
criminatory practice adopted by the LIC which adversely affected the
interest of a large number of policy holders. This study paper was widely c
-
circulated by the respondent. Mr. N.C. Krishnan, a member of the LIC
prepared a counter to the respondent's study paper and published the
same as an article in the "Hindu", a daily newspaper, challenging the
conclusions reached by the respondent in his study paper. The responde~t
---.../.. prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same newspaper. The LIC D
publishes a magazine called the 'Yogakshema' for informing its members,
-- staff and agents about its activities. It is the contention of the LIC that tliis
magazine is an in-house magazine and is not put in the market for sale ~o
the general public. Mr. Krishnan's article which was in the nature of a
counter to the respondent's study paper was published in this magazine.
~ The respondent thereupon requested the LIC to publish his rejoinder to E
-{- the said article in the said magazine but his request was spumed. The
respondent thereafter met the Chairman of the LIC and requested him to
revise the decision and to publish the article in the magazine but to no
avail. Thereupon he filed the petition contending that the refusal to publish
his rejoinder in the magazine violated his fundamental right under Article F
14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court came to the con-
clusion that the LIC's stand that the magazine was an in-house magazine
~ was untenable for two reasons, namely (1) it was available to anyone on
payment of subscription; and (2) it invited articles for publication therein
from members of the public. The High Court took the view that merely
because the magazine finds it circulation among officers, employees and G
agents of the Corporation, it does not acquire the character of an in-house
magazine since the same can be purchased by any member of the public
-.oiC on payment of subscription and members of the public are invited to
contribute articles for publication in the said magazine. It further held that
assuming that the magazine was an in-house magazine as contended by the H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A LIC, the Corporation cannot under the guise of publication of an in-house
magaziµe violate the fundamental right of the respondent. Taking note of
the fact that the LIC was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution and the in-house magazine was published with the aid of
public funds and public money, the High Court held that in the interest of
democracy and free society the magazine should be available to both, an
B admirer and a critic, for dissemination of information. In this view of the
matter the High Court concluded that the LIC had violated the
respondent's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
by refusing to publish his rejoinder to Mr. Krishnan's counter to his study
paper. It also concluded that the refusal of the LIC was arbitrary and
c violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as well. The High Court, there-
fore, directed the LIC to publish in the immediate next issue of Yogak-
shema the respondents' rejoinder to Mr. Krishnan's reply to his study
paper of lOthe July, 1978. This view of the Gujarat High Court is assailed
by. the LIC in the first appeal.
-
D ),...__
In the other appeal the facts reveal that Shri Tapan Bose, Managing
Trustee ~f the respondent trust, had produced a documentary film on the
Bhopal Gas Disaster titled "Beyond Genocide". This film was awarded the
Golden Lotus, being the best non-feature film of 1987. The respondent
contended that at the time of the presentation of awards the Central
E Miniscer for Information & Broadcasting had made a declaration that the
~
award winning short films will be telecast on Doordarshan. The respondent ).--
submitted for telecast his film to Doordarshan but Doordarshn refused to
telecast the same on the ground : "the contents being outdated do not have
relevance now for the telecast". The respondent represented to the Mini-
F ster for Information & Broadcasting, but to no avail. He, therefore, filed
the writ petition, being Civil Writ No. 212 of 1989, challenging the refusal
on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the A
same. In the counter filed to the writ petition it· was contended that
although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnightly telecast of
G award winning documentiuies, no decision was taken to telecast all national
award winning documentaries. It was emphasised that the parameters
applied for selection of a ·film for national award were not the same as
applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of
,,.r..-
a film for telecast. Emphasis was laid by Doordarshan on socially relevant
H films which were fair imd balanced and the respondent's film which was
~
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.] 605

previewed by a duly constituted Screening Committee was not found to A
meet that requirement for telecast on Doordarshan. The Ministry of Infor-
mation & Broadcasting had reconsidered the matter in the light of the
respondent's representation but did not see any reason to depart from the
view taken by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee had
founded its decision on the accepted norins for display of the documentary
films on Doordarshan and since the respondent's film did not satisfy the
B
norms for the reason that it lacked moderation and restraint in judging
things and expressing opinions, it was found not suitable for telecast. It also
took into consideration the fact that while most of the claims for compen-
sation for the victims of Bhopal o:saster were sub-judice and political
parties were raising certain issue, it was inexpedient and unwise to telecast C
the film. It was also feared that it would only end in further vitiating the
atmosphere and will serve no social purpose. The High Court came to the
conclusion that the respondent's right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Con-
stitution obligated Doordarshan to telecast the film since the guidelines or
norms on which the refusal was based were purely executive in character D
and not law within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It,
therefore, came to the conclusion that no restriction could be placed on
the fundamental right guranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
save and except by law permitted by Article 19(2) and not by executive or
non-statutory guidelines on the basis of which Doordarshan had refused to
telecast the film. It took the view that these norms were for internal E
guidance and cannot interfere with the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It, therefore, directed Doordarshan to .
' telecast the film "Beyond Genocide" at a time and date convenient to it ·
' keeping in view the public interest and on such terms and conditions as it ·
would like to impose in accordance with law. It is against this direction of F
the High Court that the second the second appeal is preferred.

Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being ·
conveys his thoughts, sentiments and feelings to others. Freedom of speech ·
and expression is thus a natural right which a human being acquires on
birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right. "Everyone has the right to G
freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek and receive and impart informa-.
tion and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" proclaims
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The People of India
declared in the Preamble of the Constitution which they gave into them- H
)-

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A selves their resolve to secure to all citizens liberty of thought and expres- y
sion. This resolve is reflected in Article 19(1)(a) which is one of the articles
found in Part III of the Constitution which enumerates the Fundamental
Rights. That article reads as under :

"19(1). All citizens shall have the right-
B
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;"

Article 19(2) which has relevance may also be reproduced : ~-

"19(2). Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
c operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making
any law, insofar 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 morality or in relation to contempt of court, defama-
D tion or incitement to an offence."

A constitutional provision is never static, it is ever evolving and ever
chaning and, therefore, does not admit of a narrow, pedantic or syllogistic
approach. If such an approach had been adopted by the American Courts,
E the First Amendment-(1791)- "Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press" - would have been restricted in its
application to the situation then obtaining and would not have catere~ to
the changed stituation arising on account of the transformation of the print
media. It was the broad approach adopted by the court which enabled
them to chart out the contours of ever expanding notions of press freedom.
F In Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, Justice Frankfurtur observed :

"....The language of the First Amendment is to be read not as
barren words found in a dictionary but as symbols of historic
experience illuminated by the presuppositions of those who
employed them."
G
Adopting this approach in Joseph Burstyn. Inc. v. Wilson 343 U.S. 495
the Court rejected its earlier detennination to the contrary in Mutual Film
Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 and concluded
that expression through motion pictures is included within the protection
H of the First Amendment. The Court thus expanded the reach of the First
X.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.] 607

Amendment by placing a liberal construction on the language of that A
provision. It will. thus be seen that the American Supreme Court has always
placed a broad interpretation on the contitutional provisions for the ob-
vious reason that the constitution has to serve the needs of an ever chll1:1ging
society.

The same trend is discernible from the decisions of the Indian Courts
B
also. It must be appreciated that the Indian Constitution has separately
enshrined the fundamental ;ights in Part III of the Constitution since they
represent the basic values which the People of India cherished when they
gave unto themselves the constitu.tion for free India. That was with a view
to ensuring that their honour, dignity and self respect will be protected in c
free India. They had learnt a bitter lesson from the behaviour of those in
authority during the colonial rule. They were, therefore, not prepared to
leave anything to chance. They, therefore, considered it of importance to
protect specific basic human rights by incorporating a Bill of Rights in the
Constitution in the form of Fundamental Rights. These fundamental rights D
were intended to serve generation after generation. They had to be stated
in broad terms leaving scope for expansion by courts. Such an intention
must be ascribed to the Constitution makers since they had themselves
made provisions in the Constitution to bring about a socio-economic
transformation. That being so, it is reasonable to. infer that the Constitution
makers employed a broad phraseology whil¢fArafting the fundamental E
rights so that they may be able to ca_t~r. to·the ne~ds of a changing society.
It, therefore, does not need any elaborate argument to uphold the conten-
tion that constitutional provisions in general and fundamental rights in
particular must be broadly construed unless the context otherwise requires.
It seems well settled from the decisions referred to at the Bar that con-
F
) ..... , stitutional provisions must' receive a broad interpretation and the scope and
ambit of such provisions, in particular the fundamental rights, should not
be cut down by too astute or too restricted an approach. See Sakal Papers
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 SCR 842 = AIR 1962 SC 305.

The words 'freedom of speech and expression' must, therefore, be G
broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words
of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, there-
fore, includes the right to propagate one's views through the print media
or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the
television. Every citizen of this free country, therefore, has the right to air H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A his or her views through the printing and/or the electronic media subject -,....--
of course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. The print media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role
of public educators, so vital to the growth of a healthy democracy. Freedom
to air one's views is the life line of any democratic institution and any
attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to
B democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. It cannot be
gainsaid that modern communication mediums advance public interest by
informing the public of the events and developments that have taken place )-.
and thereby educating the voters, a role considered significant for the
vibrant functioning of_a democracy. Therefore, in any set up, more so in a
c democratic set up like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular
consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned
_,.
_,,
upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. t
It follows that a citizen for propagation of his or her ideas has a right to
publish for circulation his views in periodicals, magazines and journals or ~

D through the electronic media since it is well known that these communica- .--
tion channels are great purveyors of news and views and make considerable
impact on the minds of the readers and viewers and are known to mould
public opinion on vital issues of national importance. Once it is conceded,
and it cannot indeed be disputed, that freedom of speech and expression
includes freedom of circulation and propagation of ideas, there can be no
E doubt that the right extends to the citizen being permitted to use the media ')--
'
to answer the criticism levelled against the view propagated by him. Every

---
free citizen has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before
the public; to forbit this, except to the extent permitted by Article 19(2),
would be an inroad on his freedom. This freedom must, howe~er, be
F exercised with circumspection and care must be taken not to trench on the
rights of other citizens or to jeopardise public interest. It is manifest from
Article 19(2) that the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) is subject to
~
imposition of reasonable restrictions in the interest of, amongst others,
publlc order, decency or morality or in relation to defamation or incitement
to an offence.It is, therefore, obvious that subject to reasonable restrictions
G placed under Article 19(2) a citizen has a right a publish, circulate and
disseminate his views and any attempt to thwart or deny the same would
offend Article 19(1)(a). ,>:---
--
We may now refer to the case law on the subject. In Romesh Tappar ~
H v. The State of Madras, (1950] SCR 495 this Court held that the freedom
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.) 609

of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and this A
freedom is ensured by. the freedom of circulation. It pointed out that
freedom of speech and expression are the foundation of all democratic
organisations and are essestial for the proper functioning of the processes
of democracy. This view was reiterated in Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
wherein this Court observed that the freedom, of speech and expression B
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of the Press. For
propagating his ideas a citizen had the right to publish them, to disseminate
them and to circulate them, either by word of mouth or by writing. In
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of
India & Ors. etc. etc., [1985] 2 SCR 287 this Court after pointing out that ·
communication needs in a democratic society should be met by the exten- C

- tion of specific rights e.g., the right to be informed, the right to inform, the
right to privacy, the right to participate in public communications, the right
to communicate, etc., proceeded to observe at page 316 as follows :

"In today's free world freedom of Press is the heart of social
and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role .
n:
of the public educator making formal and non formal education
possible in large scale particularly in the developing world
where television and other kinds of modern communication are
not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the
press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and E
opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make
responsible judgments. Newspaper being surveyors of news and

-- views having a bearing on public administration very often carry
material which would not be palatable to Governments and·
other authorities. The authors of the article which are published F
in the newspapers have to be critical of the action of the
Government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles
tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power."

This Court pointed out that the constitutional guarantee of the
freedom of speech and expression is not so much for the benefit of the G
press as it is for the benefit of the public. The people have a right to be
informed of the developments that take place in a democratic process and
the press plays a vital role in disseminating this information. Neither the
Government nor any instrumentality of the Government or any public
sector undertaking run with the help of public funds can shy away from H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A articles which expose weaknesses in its functioning and which is given cases
pose a threat to their power by attempting to create obstacles in the
information percolating to the members of the community. In Odyssey
Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghtana & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC
410 a public interest litigation was commenced under Article 226 of the
Constitution to restrain the authorities from telecasting the serial 'Honi
B Anhony' on the plea that it was likely to spread false and blind beliefs and
superstition amongst the members of the public. The High Court by an
· interim injunction restrained the authorities from telecasting the serial
which led the producer thereof to approach this Court under Article .136
of the Constitution. This Court while allowing the appeal held that the right
c
-
of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the conditions
imposed by the Doordarshan being a part of the fundamental right of
freedom of expression could be curtailed only under circumstances set out
in Article 19(2) and in no other manner. The right to exhibit the film was
similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views through any other media
D such as newspapers, magazines, advertisement hoardings, etc. More recent-
ly in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, [1989] 2 SCC 574 this Court was
required to consider if the Madras High Court was justified in revoking
the 'U' certificate issued to a Tamil Film "Ore Oru Gramathile" for public
exhibition. The fundamental point urged before this Court was based on
the freedom enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). This Court after pointing out
E the difference in language between the U.S. First Amendment clause and
. Article 19(1)(a), proceeded to observe in paragraph 10 as under :

F
"Movie doubtless enjoys the guarantee under Article 19(1)(a)
but there is one significant difference between the movie and
other modes of communication. The movie canno~ function in
a free market place like the newspaper, magazine or advertise-
--
ment. Movie motivates thought and action an~ assures a high .--\
degree of attention and retention. lt makes its impact simul-
taneously arousing the visual and aural senses. The focussing
of an intense light on a screen with the dramatizing of facts and
G opinion makes the ideas more effective. The combination of
act and speech, sight and sound in semi-darkness of the theatre
with elimination of all distracting ideas will have an impact in
the minds of spectators. In some cases, it will have a complete
and immediate influence on, and appeal for everyone who sees
H it. In view of the scientific improvements in photography and
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.) 611

production the present movie is a powerful means of com- A
munication."

This Court emphasised that the freedom of expression means the
right to express one's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture
or in any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communica-
tion and the right to propagate or publish opinion. Concluding the discus- B
sion this Court observed in paragraph 53 as under :

"We end here as we began on this topic. Freedom of expression
which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be
held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fun- C

- damental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably
restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and
the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and
not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism
of government policies and operations is not a ground for
restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views D
of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to cemocracy as
to the person himself."

From the above resume of the case law it is evident that this Ccurt
has always placed a broad interpretation on the value and content of E
Article 19(1)(a), making it subject only to the restrictions permissible under
Article 19(2). Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or suffocate this
freedom have always been firmly repelled. More so when public authorities
have betrayed autocratic tendencies.

The question then is whether the respondent of the first appeal could p
as a matter of right insist that the UC-print his rejoinder in their magazine.
The LIC denied this right on the ground that their magazine was an
in-house magazine circulated amongst subscribers who were policy holders,
officers, employees and agents of the corporation. The High Court rejected
this contention on two grounds in the main, viz., (i) it is available to anyone G
on payment of subscription and (ii) members of the public are invited to
contribute articles for publication. Even on the assumption that it is an
in-house magazine the High Court observed 'under the pretext and guise
of publishing a house magazine, the Corporation cannot violate the fun-
damental rights of the petitioner if he has any'. According to the High
Court a house magazine cannot claim any privilege against the fundamental H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A rights of a citizen. No serious exception can be taken to this. approach
whcih commended to the High Court. In the first place it must be remem-
bered that it is not the case of the LIC that the respondent's study paper
contains any material which can be branded as offensive, in the sense that
it would fall within anyone of the restrictive clauses of Article 19(2). The
study paper is a research document containing satistical information to
B support the conclusions reached by the author. The underlying idea is to
point out that unduly high premiums are charged ty the LIC from those
taking out life insurance policies thereby denying access to insurance
coverage to a vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay the high
premiums. The forwarding letter of 10th July, 1978 would show that copies
c of the study paper were circulated to a few informed citizens with a request
to disseminate the contents thereof through articles, speeches, etc. Mr.
N.C. Krishnan wrote a counter 'LIC and its policy holders' which appeared
in the Hindu of 6th November, 1978. This article begins by adverting to the
-
study paper circulated by the respondent. The respondent prepared a
D rejoinder 'Raw deal for Policy holders' which too was published in the
Hindu of 4th December, 1978. The LIC then printed and published the
article of Mr. Krishnan in its magazine Yogakshema (December 1978
issue). On the respondent learning about the same, he requested that in
fairness his rejoinder which was already published in the Hindu should also
be published in the said magazine to present a complete picture to the
E reader. The LIC refused to accede to this request and hence this litigation.

There is no dispute that the LIC is a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, vide Sukhdev Singh & others v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh, (1975] 1 SCC 421. It is created under an Act, namely, the
F Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and is charged with the duty 'to
carry on Life Insurance business, whether in or outside India'. It is further
charged with the duty to so exercise its powers under the Act as 'to secure
that life insurance business is developed to the best advantage of the
cummunity' [Section 6(1)]. It is, therefore, obvious that the LIC must
G function in the best interest of the cummunity. The cummunity is, therefore,
entitled to know whether or not this requirement of the statute is being
satisfied in the functioning of the LIC. The respondent's effort in preparing
the study paper was to bring to the notice of the community that the LIC
had strayed from its path by pointing out that premium rates were unduly
high when they could be low if the LIC avoided wasteful indulgences. The
H endeavour was to enlighten the community of the drawbacks and shortcom-
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.] 613

ings of the corporation and to pin-point the areas where improvement was A
needed and was possible. With a view to stimulating a debate a study paper
was prepared and circulated to which Mr. Krishnan, a member of UC,
countered.. Since Mr. Krishnan had tried to demolish some of the points
raised by the respondent in his study paper, the respondent had published
a rejoind<;:r in the Hindu. However, the LIC refused to publish it in their B
magazine financed from public funds. Such an attitude on the part of the
LIC can be described as both unfair and unreasonable; unfair because
fairness demanded that both view points were placed before the readers,
however limited be- their number, to enable them to draw their own
conclusions and unreasonable because there was no logic or proper jus-
tification for refusing publication. A monopolistic state instrumentality C
- which survives on public funds cannot act in an arbitrary manner on the
specious plea that the magazine is an in-house one and it is a matter of its
exclusive privilege to print or refuse to print the rejoinder. It is difficult to
understand why the LIC should feel shy of printing the rejoinder if it has
nothing to fear. By denying information to the consumers as well as other D
subscribers the LIC cannot be said to be acting in the best interest of the
community. It is not the case of the LIC that the rejoinder to Mr.
Krishnan's article is in any manner prejudicial to the members of the
community or that it is based on imaginery or concocted material. That
being so on the fairness doctrine the LIC was under an obligation to
publish the rejoinder since it had published Mr. Krishnan's counter to the E
study paper. The respondent's fundamental right of speech and expression
clearly entitled him to insist that his views on the subject should reach those
who read the magazine so that they have a complete picture before them
and not a one sided or distorted one.
F
For the above reasons we do not find any infirmity in the view taken
by the High Court on the LIC's obligation to print the rejoinder in its
magazine. We must clarify that we should not be understood as laying down
an absolute proposition that merely because the LIC is a State and is
running a magazine with public funds it is under an ob!igation to print any
matter that any informed citizen may forward for publication. The view that G
we are taking is in the peculiar facts of the case.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the·LIC that since the 1

rejoinder of the respondent is to Mr. Krishnan's article printed in Decem-
ber 1978, the same has become stale by passage of time and has lost its !H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A relevance and hence this Court should annul the High Court's directive to
the LIC to print and publish the same in its magazine. Counsel for the
respondent submitted that the issue raised by the respondent regarding
high premium rates is still live as the situation has not improved from what ·
it was in 1978. It may be that the statistical information in the rejoinder
may be o•Jtdated but, contends the learned counsel, the issue that the LIC
B is charging unduly high premium rates by refusing to prune its avoidable
expenses, is still . relevant. He submits that if the court accedes to the
submission of the learned counsel for the LIC it would result in placing a
premium on the recalcitrant attitude of the LIC. ·We see force· in this
. submission. By refusing to print and publish the rejoinder the LIC had
C violated the respondent's fundamental right. A wrong doer cannot be heard
to say that its persistent refusal to print and publish the article must yield
the desired result, namely to frustrate the respondent. The Court must be
careful to see that it does not, even unwittingly, aid the effort to defeat a
-
party's righ•. Besides, if the respondent thinks that the issue is live and
D rel~vant and desires its publication, we thing we must accept his assess-
ment. However, in order that the reader knows and appreciates why the
rejoinder has appeared after such long years we direct that the LIC will,
while publishing the rejoinder as directed by the High Court, print an
explanation and an apology for the delay. With this modification, the LIC's
appeal must fail. '
E
That takes us to the appeal involving Doordarshan's refusal to
telecast the documentary "Beyond Genocide" based on the Bhopal Gas
Disaster. There is no dispute that this film won the Golden Lotus award
as the best non-feature film of 1987. Yet, as the judgment of the High Court
F reveals, Doordarshan refused to telecast it on the ground that "the contents
being outdated do not have relevance now for the telecast". It was em-
phasised that ·since the parameters applied for selection of a film for
national award were different from those applied by the Film Selection
Committee of Doordarshan when it comes to selecting a film for telecast,
the mere fact that a film has won a national award is not sufficient for all
G national award winning films are not ipso facto fit for telecast on television.
It was said that unless a film is socially relevant and fair and balanced it is
not cleared for telecast. The film in question did not satsify this broad norm
since it was found lacking in moderation and restraint and hence it was not
clearred for telecast. Lastly it was said that since claims for compensation
H of the victims of the tragedy were pending and political parties were raising
J..

L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.] 615

various issues, it was though inexpedient to screen the film. It is, however, A
--·( admitted in paragraph 2 of the Speeial Leave Petition: "The documentary
is an appraisal of what exactly transpired in Bhopal on the date the gas
leak occurred". Admittedly the said film was granted a 'U'certificate by the 1

Central Board of Film Certification under section SA of the
Cinematograph Act, 19S2 (hereinafter called 'the Act').
B
In the 'High Court Doordarshan had by way of an additional affidavit ,
contended that before refusing to telecast the film, its selection committee
-( had examined the film with a view to finding out if it conformed to the '
norms laid down for selection of a docUmentary film for telecast. These
norms on which reliance was placed have been extracted in the judgment C

-
1

of the High Court and read as under:

"(i) Criticism of friendly countries;

(ii) Attack on religions and communities;
D
(iii) Anything obscene and defamatory;

(iv) Indtement of violence of anything against maintenance of '
law and order;

'--r (v) Anything amounting to contempt of court;

(vi) Attack on a political party by name;
E

(vii) Hostial criticism of any State or Centre."

The High Court observes that these guidelines were purely F 1

departmental/executive instructions or notings on the file for internal
..>-- - guidance which cannot curtail the freedom conferred by Article 19(1)(a)
and not being 'law' could not claim the protection of Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the '
High Court had completely misdirected itself in not appreciating that these
norms were fixed keeping in mind the requirement of Section SB of the
,G
Act which section was consistent with Article 19(2) extracted earlier. We
may now examine the scheme of the Act.

The Act was enacted to provide for the certification of cinemato-
graph films for exhibition and for regulating their exhibition. Section 3 of H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute a Board consisting
of a Chairman, five whole time members and six honorary members, three
of whom must be persons engaged or employed in the film industry, for
the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition. Section 3B empowers
the Board so constituted to consitute by speical or general order an
Examining Committee for the examination of any film or class of films and ·
B a Revising Committee for reconsidering, if necessary, the recommendations
of the Examining Committee. Any person desiring to exhibit any film has
to make an application as provided by Section 4 to the Board in the
prescribed manner for a certificate and the Board may after examination
of the film saction the film for unrestricted public exhibition or sanction
c the film for public exhibition restricted to adults or to direct the applicant
to carry out such excisions and modifications in the film as it thinks
necessary before sanctioning it for unrestricted public exhibition or for
public exhibition restricted to adults or refuse to sanction the film for
-
public exhibition. Section 4A provides for the examination of films by t.he
D Examining Committee and in the case of difference of opinions amongst
the members of the Examining Committee for further examination by the
Revising Committee. Section SA provides for certification of films. If after
examination the Board consider that the film is suitable for unrestricted
public exhibition or that although not suitable for such exhibition, it is
suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, it is required to issue a
E 'U' certificate in the case of the former and an 'A' certificate in the case
of the latter. Section SB provides for laying down principles for guidance
in the matter of certification of films. This section to the extent relevant

--
for our purpose reads as under :

"SB. Principles for guidance in certifying films - (1) A film shall
F
not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the
authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part
of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defama-
G tion or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission
of any offence.

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) .......
the Central Government may issue such directions as it may
think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH (AHMADI, J.) 617

authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in A
sanctioning films for public exhibition .......".

Section SC provides for the constitution of appellate tribunals,
whereas Section SD provides for appeals against the Board's decision
refusing to grant the certificate or granting only 'A' Certificate or directing
the applicant to carry out any excisions or modifications. In addition B
thereto revisional powers have been conferred on the Central Government
to call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any film at any stage
where it is not made the subject matter of appeal, to enquire into the
· matter and make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit and where
necessary give a direction that the exhibition of the film should suspended c
for a period not exceeding two months. Sub-section (S) of section 6 lays
down that the Central Government may, if satisfied in relation to any fil111
in respect of which an order has been made by an appellate tribunal under
Section SB that it is necessary so to do in the interests of (i) the sovereignty
and integrity of India or (ii) the security of the State or (iii) friendly D

-. relations with foreign States or (iv) public order or decency or morality,
make such enquiry into the matter as it deems necessary and pass such
order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Thereupon the Board must dispose
of the matter in conformity with such order. Section 7 lays down the
penalties for contravention of the requirements of Part II . of the Act.
Section 8 confers power to make rules and Section 9 empowers the Central E
Government to exempt the exhibition or export of any film or class of films
from any of the provisions of the said part or of any rules made thereunder

--
subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as it may impose. Part
III of the Act deals with the regulation of exhibitions by means of
Cinematograph with which we are not concerned. This in brief is the
F
scheme of the statute.

In exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section SD of
the Act the Central Government issued a notification dated 7th January,
1978 laying down the principles which should guide the authorities in
sanctioning the films for public exhibition. These guidelines came to be G
enlarged by a subsequent notification dated 11th August, 1989. The
guidelines laid down by these two notifications require the Board of Film
Certification to ensure that :

"(i) Anti-social activities such as violence are not glorified or H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A justified:

(ii) The modus-operandi of criminals or other visuals or words
likelY.,tO incite the commission of any offence are not depicted:

(iia) Scenes shov".;ng involvement of children in violence, either
B as victims or as perpetrators, or showing child abuse or abuse
of physically and mentally handicapped persons are ·not
presented in a manner which is needlessly prolonged or ex-
ploitative in nature;

(iii) Pointless or avoidable scenes of violence, curelty and
c horror ·are not shown;

(iiia) s~enes which have the effect of justifying or glorifying
drinking and drug addiction are not shown;
-
D (iv) Human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity
and depravity;

(iva) Visuals or words depicting women in any ignorable ser-
vility to man or glorifying such servility as a praiseworthy quality
in women are not presented;
E
(ivb) Scenes involving sexual violence agairist women like at-
tempt to rape, gangrape, murder or any other form of moles-

--
tation or scences of a similar nature shall be avoided and if for
any reason such things are found to be inevitable for the
sequence of a theme, they shall be properly scruitinised so as
F to ensure that they do not create any adverse impression on
viewers and the duration of the scenes shall be reduced to the
shortest span;

(v) Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other
G groups are not presented;

(va) Visuals or words which promote communal obscurantist,
antiscientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented;

(vi) The sovereignty and integrity of India is not called in
H question;
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.) 619

(vii) The security of the State is not jeopardised or endangered; A
(viii) Friendly relations with foreign States are not strained;

(ix) Public order is not endangered;

(x) Visuals or words involving defamation or contempt of court i B
are not presented."

In follwing these guidelines or principles the Board of Film Certifica-
tion has been cautioned to ensure that the film is judged in its entirely from
the point of view of its overall impact and is judged in the light of C

-
contemporary standards of the courtry and the people to which the film
relates. Pursuant to the issuance of these guidelines the Central Govern-
ment issued a futher notification dated 16th October, 1984 in exercise of
power under Section 9 of the Act exempting all Doordarshan programmes
from the provisions relating to certification of films i11 Part II of the Act !

and the Rules made thereunder subject to the condition that while clearing · D
programmes for telecast, the Director General, Doordarshan or the con-
cerned director, Doordarshan Kendra shall keep in vic~w the film certifica-
tion guidelines issued by the Central Government to the Board of Film
Certification under sub-section (2) of Section SB of the Act.

-- -~
It may be stated at the outset that the refusal to telecast was not E
based on the ground that the list of award winning fillms was long and on
the basis of inter-se priority amongst such films and the time allocated for
telecasting such films, i.t was not possible to telecast the film. The grounds I
for refusal that can be culled out from tl!e pleadings were (i) the film is •
out dated (ii) it has lost its relevance (iii) it lacks moderation and restraint F
(iv) it is not fair and balanced (v) political parties have been raising various
issues concerning the tragedy and (vi) claims for compesation by victims
are sub-judice. In addition to these grounds which can be culled out from
the judgment of the High Court, it is found from the affidavit filed in the
present proceedings that the film was not found fit for telecast as it was G

-
likely to create commotion to the already charged atmosphere and because
the film criticised the action of the State Government, which was not
permissible under the Guidelines. The last two grounds were not before:
the High Court giving the impression that Doordarshan is shifting its stand.
We will however not brush them aside on such technical considerations.
We may however point out that Doordarshan has not placed any material H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A suggesting why it things that the film does not conform to the above stated ~
norms.

Mr. Tulsi, the learned counsel for Doordarshan, submitted that
sub-section (2) of section SB empowers the Central Government to issue
B directions setting out the principles which shall guide the authority com-
petent to grant certificates under the Act in sanctioning films for public
e~ibition and since the exemption granted to Doordarshan under Section
9 of the Act from the provisions relating to certification of films in Part II
of the Act and Rules made thereunder by notification dated 16th October,
1984 is subject to the condition that while clearing programmes for telecast
C , Doordarshan shall keep in view the film certification guidelines issued by
the Central Government under Section SB of the Act, the guidelines clearly
have statutory flavour and would, therefore, fall within the protective
umbrella of Article 19(2) and the High Court was wrong in brushing them
-
aside as mere departmental/executive directions or notings on a file not
D having the force of law. We will so assume for the purposes of this appeal.
However, once it is recognised that a film-maker has a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a) to exhibit his film, the party which claims that it was
entitled to refuse enforcement of this right by virtue of law made· under
Article 19(2), the onus lies on that party to show that the film did not
conform to the requirements of that law, in the present case the guidelines
E relied upon. Two question, therefore, arise (i) whether the film-maker had
a fundamental right to have his film telecast on Doordarshan and (ii) if yes,
whether Doordarshan has successfully shown that it was entitled to refuse
telecast as the guidelines were breached?

F In the United States prior restraint is generally regarded to be at
serious odds with the First Amendment and carries a heavy presumption
against its constitutionality and the authorities imposing the same have to
discharge a heavy burden on demonstrating its justification (See New York
Times Company v. 17te United States, 403 U.S. 713. Traditionally prior
restraints, regardless of their from, are frowned upon as threats to freedom
G of expression since they contaiq within themselves forces which if released
have the potential for imposing arbitrary and at times irrational decisions.
Since the function of any Board of Film Censors is to censor it, it imme-
diately conflicts with the Article 19(1)(a) and has to be justified as falling
within permissible restraint under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. A
H similar question came up before this Court in KA. Abbas v. The Union of i
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH (AHMADI, J.] 621

India, (1971) 2 SCR 446 wherein Chief Justice Hidayatullah exhaustively A
-{ dealt with the question of prior restraint in the context of the provisions of
the Constitution and the Act. The learned Chief Justice after setting out
the various provisions to which we have already adverted posed the ques-
tion; 'How far can these restrictions go and how are these to be imposed'?
The documentary film 'A tale of fo1ir citie!.' made by K.A. Abbas portrayed
B
the contrast between the luxurious life of the rich and the squalor and
poverty of the poor in the four principal cities of the country and included
therein shots from the red light district of Bombay showing scantily dressed
women soliciting customers by standing near the doors and windows. The
Board of Film Censors granted 'A' certificate to the film and refused the
'U' certificate sought by Abbas. This was on the ground that the film dealt C

- with relations between sexes in such a manner as to depict immoral traffic
in women and because the film contained incidents unsuitable for young
persons. Abbas challenged the Board's decision on the ground (i) that
pre-censorship cannot be tolerated as it was in violation of the freedom of
--~
speech and expression and (ii) even if it is considered legitimate it must be D
exercised on well-defined principles leaving no room for arbitrary
decisions. This Court held that censorship in India had full justification in
the field of exhibition of films since it was in the interest of society and if
the legitimate power in abused it can be struck down. While dealing with
the grounds on which the. 'U' certificate was refused, the learned Chief
Justice obser.ved : E

"The task of the censor is extremely delicate and his duties
cannot be the subject of an exhaustive set of commands estab-
lished by prior ratiocination. But direction is necessary of him
so that he does not sweep within the terms of the directions F
vast areas of thought, speech and expression of artistic quality
and social purpose and interest. Our standards must be so
framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection
of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us deter-
mines what the morally healthy cannot' view or read. The
standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial G
allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for
creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles
along with what is good. We must not look upon such human
relationships as banned in toto and for ever from human
thought and must give scope for talent to put them befor~ H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

society. The requirements of art and literature include within
A
themselves a comprehensive view of social life and not only in
\-
its ideal form and the line is to be drawn where the average
man moral man begins to feel embarrased or disgusted at a
naked pQrtrayal of life without the redeeming touch of art or
genius or social value. If the depraved begins to see in these
B things more than what an average person would, in much the
same way, as it is wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman's
legs in everything, it caQDot be helped. In our scheme of things
ideas having redeeming social or artistic value must also have
importance and protection for their growth."
c
In Ramesh v. The Union of India, (1988] 1 SCC 668 petition was filed
to restrain the screening of the serial 'Tamas' on the ground that it violated
Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution and Section SB of the Act. Based
-
on the novel of Bhisma Sahni this serial depicted the events that took place
D in Lahore immediately before the partition of the country. Two Judges of
the Bombay High Court saw the serial and rejected the contention that it
propagates the cult of violence. This Court after referring to the observa-
tions of Hidayatullah, CJ. in K.A. Abbas proceeded to state as under :

"It is no doubt true that the motion picture is a powerful
E instrument with a much stronger impact on the visual and aural
sense of the spectators than any other medium of communica-

--
tion; likewise, it is also true that the television, the range of
which has vastly developed in our country in the past few years,
now reaches out to the remotest corners of the country catering
F to the not so sophisticated, literary or educated masses of
people living in distant villages. But the argument overlooks
that the potency of the motion picture is as much for good as
for evil. If some scenes of violence, some nuances of expression
or some events in the film can stir up certain feelings in the
spectator, an equally deep strong, lasting and beneficial impres-
G sion can be conveyed by scenes revealing the machinations of
selfish interests, scenes depicting mutual respect and tolerance,
scenes showing comradship, help and kindness which transcend >-
,
the barriers of religion. Unfortunately, modern developments
both in the field of cinema as well as in the field of national
H and international politics have rendered it inevitable for people
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH [AHMADI, J.) 623

to face realities of internecine conflicts, inter alia, in the name A
of religion. Even contemporary news bulletins very often carry
scenes of pitched battle or violence. What is necessary some-
times is to penetrate behind the scenes and analyse the causes
of such conflicts. The attempt of the author in this film is to
draw a lesson from our country's past history, expose the
motives of persons who operate behind the scenes to generate
B
and foment conflicts and to emphasise the desire of persons to
live in amity and the need for them to rise above religious
barriers and treat one another with kindness, sympathy and
affection. It is possible only for a motion picture to convey such

- a message in depth and if it is able to do this, it will be an C
achievement of great social value."

This Court upheld the finding of the Bombay High Court that the
serial viewed in its entirety is capable of creating a lasting impression of
this message of peace and co-existence and there is no fear" of the people D
being obsessed, overwhelmed or carried away by scenes of violence or
fanaticism shown in the film.

As already pointed out earlier this Court in S.. Rangarajan's case
(supra) emphasised that the freedom conferred on a citizen by Article
19(1)(a) includes the freedom to communicate one's ideas or thoughts E
through a newspaper, a magazine or a movie. Although movie enjoys that
freedom it must be remembered that movie is a powerful mode of com-

- munication and has the capacity to make a profound impact on the minds
of the viewers and it is, therefore, essential to ensure that the message it
conveys is not harmful to the society or even a section of the society. F
Censorship by prior restraint, therefore, seems justified for the protection
of the society from the ill-effects that a motion picture may produce if
·unrestricted exhibition is allowed. Censorship is thus permitted to protect
social interests enumerated _in Article 19(2) and section 5B of the Act. But
such censorship must be reasonable and must answer the test of Article 14 ,
of the Constitution. In this decision the fundamental difference between G
the U.S. First Amendment and the freedom conferred by 19(1)(a), subject
to Article 19(2) has been highlighted and we need not dwell on the same.

Every right has a corresponding duty or obligation and so has the
fundamental right of speech and expression. The freedom conferred by H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A Article 19{1)(a) is, therefore, not absolute as perhaps in the case of the ' )'--
U.S. First Amendment; it carries with it certain responsibilities towards
fellow citizens and society at large. A citizen who exercises this right must
remain conscious that his fellow citizen too has a similar right. Therefore,
the right must be so exercised as not to come to direct conflict with the
right of another citizen. It must, therefore, be so exercised as not to
B jeopardise the right of another or clash with the paramount interest. of the
State or the community at large. In India, therefore, our Constitution
recognises the need to place reasonable restrictions on grounds specified
by Article 19(2) and section SB of the Act on the exercise of the right of
speech and expression. It is for this reason that this Court has recognised
C the need for prior restraint and our laws have assigned a specific role to
the censors as such is the need in a rapidly changing societal structure. But
since permissible restrictions, albeit reasonable, are all the same restric-
tions on the exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), such
restrictions are bound to be viewed as anathema, in that, they are in the
D nature· of curbs or limitations on the exercise of the right and are, therefore,
bound to be viewed with suspicion, thereby throwing a heavy burden on
the authorities that seek ~o impose them. The burden would therefore,
heavily lie on the authorities that seek to impose them to show that the
restrictions are reasonable and permissible in law.

E From the above discussion it follows that unquestionably the respon-
dent had a right to convey his perception of the gas disaster in Bhopal
through the documentary film prepared by him. This film not only won the

F
Golden Lotus award but was also granted the 'U' certificate by the censors.
Even according to the petitioners 'the documentary is an appraisal of what
exactly transpired in Bhopal on the date the gas leak occurred'. The
-
petitioners, therefore, concede that the film faithfully brings out the events
that took place at Bhopal on that fateful night. Therefore, the respondent
cannot be accused of having distorted the events subsequent to the disaster.
How then can it be alleged that it is not fair and balanced or lacks in
G moderation and restraint? It is nowhere stated which part of the film lacks
moderation and/or restraint nor is it shown how the film can be described
as not fair and balanced. Merely because it is critical of the State Govern-
ment, perhaps because of its incapacity to cope with unprecedented situa-
tion, is no reason to deny selection and publication of the film. So also
pendency of claims for compensation does not render the matter sub-
H judice so as to shut out the entire film from the community. In fact the
L.l.C. v. PROF. SHAH (AHMADI, J.) 625

community was keen to know what actually had happened, what is happen- A
ing, what remedial measures the State Authorities are taking and what are
the likely consequences of the gas leak. To bring out the inadequacy of the
State effort or the indifference of the officers, etc., cannot amount to an
attack on any political party if the criticism is genuin_e and objective and
made in good faith. If the norms for appraisal was the same as applied by
the censors while granting the 'U' certificate, it is difficult to understand
how Doordarshan could refuse to exhibit it. It is not that it was not sent B
for being telecast soon after the disaster that one could say that it is
outdated or has lost relevance. It is even today of relevance and the press
has been writing about it periodically. The learned Additional Solicitor

- General was not able to point out how it could be said that the film was
not consistent with the accepted norms setout earlier. Doordarshan being
a State controlled agency funded by public funds could not have denied C
access to the screen to the respondent except on valid grounds. We,
therefore, see no reason to interfere \\'ith the High Court order.

In the result both the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.

T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.