LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

560                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 560              [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A                         LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA
                                       v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 2013)
B                                MAY 18, 2018
               [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
            Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 :
             s. 3(o) – Commissioned Officer (appellant) in Indian Army –
C     Inducted in an organization (DGQA) functioning under Ministry of
      Defence – Refusal of permanent secondment to the appellant in
      DGQA – Refusal order challenged before Armed Forces Tribunal –
      Dismissed as not maintainable – On appeal, held: Enumerations
      under s. 3(o) indicate that they all relate to matters relating to
      conditions of service pertaining to the conditions of service of
D
      persons subject to Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act – Impugned
      order before the Tribunal was by a different organization –
      Therefore, cannot be held to be service matter within the meaning
      of s. 3(o) – ss. 27 and 33 of Army Act are also not applicable in the
      present case – Army Act, 1950 – ss. 27 and 33 – Navy Act, 1957 –
E     Air Force Act, 1950.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been
      enacted to provide for the adjudication or trial by Armed Forces
      Tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission,
F     appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of
      persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and
      the Air Force Act, 1950. [Para 12] [566-A-B]
             2. The definition of service matters is an inclusive
      definition. A look into the enumerations as contained in Section
G     3(o) of 2007 Act indicates that they all relate to matters relating
      to the conditions of the service of persons subject to the Army
      Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950. Last
      enumeration, i.e., (iv) of s. 3(o) is “any other matter whatsoever”,
      at first blush; it appears that the said enumeration is very wide
H
                                     560
   LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        561


which may cover all other residual categories. But, the phrase            A
“any other matter whatsoever” is to take colour from the other
three enumerations and the main provision of Section 3(o). The
pre-condition of a matter to be a service mater has to be relating
to the conditions of their service. Thus, for a matter to be treated
as a service matter, it must relate to the conditions of their service.
                                                                          B
[Para 14][567-C-E]
      3. From the facts, it is clear that the appellant was given a
tenure of two years in Directorate General of Quality Assurance
(DGQA) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry
of Defence, Department of Defence Production. After completion
of tenure of two years, the appellant returned back to the Army.          C
On 06.06.2007, the appellant’s claim for permanent secondment
in the DGQA was considered by the Quality Assurance Selection
Board (QASB), wherein he was not found fit for the permanent
secondment by the QASB, with regard to which a complaint was
filed, which w as rejected by the Ministry. DGQA is an                    D
Organisation functioning under the Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production and the question of permanent
secondment of an Army Officer was considered by the Selection
Board of DGQA. The decision not to grant permanent
secondment to the appellant in DGQA does not in any manner
affect the service conditions of the appellant as Commissioned            E
Officer. [Para 15][567-F-H; 568-A]
      4. In the present case, the action, which was impugned
before the Armed Forces Tribunal was the refusal of permanent
secondment of the appellant in DGQA by QASB. For permanent
secondment of a Commission Officer, there were orders issued              F
by the Ministry of Defence, which regulated the permanent
secondment, i.e. Government Order dated 28.10.1978, as
amended from time to time and the Government of India O.M.
dated 22.12.1993. Non-selection of the appellant which was
impugned in the application was by a different organisation, i.e.,        G
by QASB of DGQA. Therefore, action impugned before the
Tribunal cannot be held to be service matter within the meaning
of Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
[Paras 22, 23][573-C-E]

                                                                          H
562            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           5. In the present case, Section 27 has no application. Section
      27 of the Army Act, 1950 provides a remedy to aggrieved officers
      to submit a complaint to the Central Government, if he has been
      wronged by a commanding officer or any superior officer. Present
      is not a case where any action of commanding officer or any
      superior officer of appellant was complained or questioned.
B
      [Para 25][574-B]
            6. Section 33 of the Army Act, provides for “saving of rights
      and privileges under other laws”. The said provision indicates
      that the provision saves the rights and privileges conferred on
C     persons subject to Army Act, by any other law for the time being
      in force.” Section 33 has no application in facts of the present
      case. Present is not a case where the appellant is claiming any
      privilege conferred on persons subject to Army Act or by any
      other law in force. [Paras 26, 27][574-C, F]

D           Union of India and Others v. Colonel G.S. Grewal (2014)
            7 SCC 303 ; Mohammed Ansari v. Union of India and
            Others (2017) 3 SCC 740 : [2017] 1 SCR 422 –
            referred to.
                             Case law reference
E
            (2014) 7 SCC 303           referred to            Para 8
            [2017] 1 SCR 422           referred to            Para 8
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2020
      of 2013.
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2012/11.09.2012 by
      the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Lucknow at Lucknow in
      OA No. 104 of 2011/M.A. No. 72/2012.
            Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha (Appellant-in-person).
G
           Sandeep Sethi, ASG, Ms. Alka Agrawal, M. K. Maroria, Prakash
      Gautam, Advs for the Respondents.



H
    LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             563


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. We have heard the appellant
appearing in-person and Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned Additional Solicitor
General for India.
       2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the
judgment and order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Armed Forces                  B
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by which O.A.No.104 of 2011 filed
by the appellant has been rejected as not maintainable and returned to
the appellant with liberty to file the same before the concerned authority.
       3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the
issues raised in the appeal are:                                                C
       The appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army on 11.03.1989
in the Engineering Discipline. The appellant was subsequently selected
and inducted in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA)
from 31.05.2004. On completion of two years the appellant was
transferred to the Directorate of Indigenization under DGEME. Quality
                                                                                D
Assurance Selection Board (QASB) was held at DGQA organisation
for selection of the officers of the rank of Lt. Col. and Major for permanent
secondment. The appellant was not found fit for permanent secondment
by the QASB. The appellant filed a statutory complaint seeking
permanent secondment in the DGQA. The complaint was submitted at
the time when the appellant was working in the Army. The complaint              E
was forwarded to the Ministry of Defence. Since, the complaint pertained
to DGQA organisation, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production by order dated 17.12.2007 rejected
the statutory complaint of the appellant. O.A. No.104 of 2011 was filed
by the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
                                                                                F
Lucknow praying for quashing the order dated 17.12.2007 and issuing a
direction to the respondent to grant permanent secondment to the DGQA
organisation with all consequential benefits retrospectively.
       4. A counter-affidavit was filed in O.A. by the respondent. When
the O.A. was taken for hearing by the Armed Forces Tribunal on
23.08.2012 a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent that            G
the relief claimed by the applicant in the O.A. is not maintainable in the
Armed Forces Tribunal. The Armed Forces Tribunal heard the parties
on the above preliminary objection and vide order dated 23.08.2012 held
that O.A. is not maintainable. It is useful to extract paragraph 16 of the
judgment which is to the following effect:                                      H
564            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           “16. The applicant’s main grievance is that he was not
            considered for permanent seconded, DGQA organisation and
            we find no breach in the Army Act and the Army Rules and it
            is a separate organisation with the guideline for induction,
            appointment and promotion and Service HQ has no role in
            grant of second tenure of (sic) permanent secondment of any
B
            officer under the Army Act. The terms and condition of the
            service officers in DGQA is not creation of the Army Act or
            the Army Rules and the Armed Forces Tribunal is not the right
            forum for adjudication of DGQA matters. Hence the Original
            Application is not maintainable and is returned to the applicant
C           with the liberty to file the same before the concerned authority.”
             5. A miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant before
      the Tribunal seeking leave to appeal to this Court which application was
      rejected on 11.09.2012. This appeal has been filed challenging the order
      dated 23.08.2012 and order dated 11.09.2012.
D
             6. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this appeal by the
      respondent reiterating their objection that the relief which was claimed
      by the appellant in O.A. was not maintainable before the Armed Forces
      Tribunal.

E            7. The appellant appearing in-person submits that in DGQA
      Officers are drawn from Armed Forces on tenure posting and thereafter
      their cases are considered for permanent secondment as per the Office
      Memorandum dated 28.10.1978 and Office Memorandum dated
      22.12.1993. The DGQA is an organisation within the control of Ministry
      of Defence and is composed of persons subject to Army Act, 1950
F     including civilian persons thus the Armed Forces Tribunal will have the
      jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to DGQA. Relying on Section
      3(o)(iv) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the appellant submits
      that his case is squarely covered by the said provision. The appellant
      who is subject to Army Act, 1950 being a commissioned officer of Indian
G     Army can very well approach the Armed Forces Tribunal. Reliance on
      judgment of Chandigarh Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in the case of
      Brig.A.K. Bhutani vs. Union of India decided on 19.04.2011 has been
      placed. The appellant has also relied on the provisions of Sections 27
      and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 to support his submission.

H
    LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            565
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        8. Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned Additional Solicitor General submits    A
that the claim raised by the appellant before the Armed Forces Tribunal
is not covered by the definition of the service matter as defined in Section
3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. He submits that denial of
permanent secondment was made by DGQA Selection Board. No order
was passed against the appellant under the Army Act or the Army Rules
                                                                               B
against which the appellant could have made a complaint before the
Armed Forces Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India and others vs.
Colonel G.S. Grewal, 2014 (7) SCC 303 and on another judgment of
this Court in Mohammed Ansari vs. Union of India and others, 2017
(3) SCC 740. He submits that service matters with regard to which              C
Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction are service matters of Army
personnel which have been dealt under the Army Act, Army Rules and
Regulations framed therein. The action which was impugned before
the Tribunal by the appellant was not any action of the Army which
could have been complained before the Armed Forces Tribunal. He has
                                                                               D
further submitted that Armed Forces Tribunal has rightly rejected the
O.A. of the appellant as not maintainable.
       9. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused
the records.
      10. The only question which needs to be answered is as to whether        E
the Original Application filed by the appellant was maintainable before
the Armed Forces Tribunal?
        11. The main relief, which was asked by the appellant before the
Armed Forces Tribunal was to quash and set aside the order dated
17.12.2007 by which the complaint of the appellant was rejected by             F
Central Government. The appellant had prayed for a direction to the
respondents to grant permanent secondment in the DGQA Organization
with all the consequential benefits retrospectively. The Armed Forces
Tribunal (AFT) has rejected the application of the appellant holding that
it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Tribunal in Para 16
of the judgment has held that there is no breach of Army Act and the           G
Army Rules and the Service HQ had no role in grant of second tenure
of permanent secondment of any Army Officer in the DGQA
Organisation. Further, the terms and conditions of the Service Officers
in DGQA is not creation of the Army Act or the Army Rules.
                                                                               H
566            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            12. The provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 have
      to be looked into to find out as to whether the Tribunal has committed
      any error in refusing to entertain the application of the appellant. The
      Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide for the
      adjudication or trial by Armed Forces Tribunal of disputes and complaints
      with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of
B
      service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy
      Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950. Section 2 deals with the
      applicability of the Act, which is to the following Act:-
            “2. Applicability of the Act : (1) The provisions of this Act
            shall apply to all persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the
C           Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.
            (2) This Act shall also apply to retired personnel subject to
            the Army Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957 or the Air Force
            Act, 1950, including their dependants, heirs and successors,
            in so far as it relates to their service matters.”
D
            13. Section 3 is a definition section. Section 3(o) defines “service
      matters”, which is to the following effect:-
            “3(o)”service matters”, in relation to the persons subject to
            the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
E           1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) mean all
            matters relating to the conditions of their service and shall
            include—
            (i).remuneration (including allowances), pension and other
            retirement benefits;
F           (ii)tenure, including commission, appointment, enrolment,
            probation, confirmation, seniority, training, promotion,
            reversion, premature retirement, superannuation, termination
            of service and penal deductions;
            (iii)summary disposal and trials where the punishment of
G           dismissal is awarded;
            (iv)any other matter, whatsoever, but shall not include matters
            relating to—
            (i)orders issued under section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 (46
            of 1950) sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Navy Act, 1957
H
    LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            567
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (62 of 1957) and section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950; (45              A
      of 1950) and
      (ii)transfers and postings including the change of place or
      unit on posting whether individually or as a part of unit,
      formation or ship in relation to the persons subject to the
      Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957)              B
      and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950);
      (iii)leave of any kind;
      (iv)summary court martial except where the punishment is of
      dismissal or imprisonment for more than three months;”
                                                                               C
       14. The provision excludes certain matters. The present case is
not covered by excluded categories, hence that part of the provision is
not relevant for the present case. The definition of service matters is an
inclusive definition. A look into the enumerations as contained in Section
3(o) indicates that they all relate to matters relating to the conditions of
the service of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act,            D
1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950. Last enumeration, i.e., (iv) is “any
other matter whatsoever”, at first blush; it appears that the said
enumeration is very wide which may cover all other residual categories.
But, the phrase “any other matter whatsoever” is to take colour from
the other three enumerations and the main provision of Section 3(o).           E
The pre-condition of a matter to be a service mater has to be relating to
the conditions of their service. Thus, for a matter to be treated as a
service matter, it must relate to the conditions of their service.
       15. From the facts as noted above, it is clear that the appellant
was given a tenure of two years in DGQA in accordance with the                 F
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence
Production, as noticed above. After completion of tenure of two years,
the appellant returned back to the Army. On 06.06.2007, the appellant’s
claim for permanent secondment in the DGQA was considered by the
QASB, wherein he was not found fit for the permanent secondment by
the QASB, with regard to which a complaint was filed, which was rejected       G
by the Ministry. DGQA is an Organisation functioning under the Ministry
of Defence, Department of Defence Production and the question of
permanent secondment of an Army Officer was considered by the
Selection Board of DGQA. The decision not to grant permanent
secondment to the appellant in DGQA does not in any manner affect the
                                                                               H
568            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     service conditions of the appellant as Commissioned Officer. The Tribunal
      has placed reliance on a judgment of the Principal Bench of the Armed
      Forces Tribunal in T.A. No. 125 of 2010, Maj. General S.B. Akali Etc.
      Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. In the above case, the question of
      selection of the applicant in Defence Research and Development
      Organisation was under consideration. The objection was raised that
B
      the AFT has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Principal Bench
      of the Armed Forces Tribunal, speaking through Justice A.K. Mathur,
      Chairperson (as he then was), in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 has held:-
            “12. We have bestowed our best of consideration and we are
            of the opinion that as per Section 2 read with Section 3(o) of
C           the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, this Tribunal has limited
            jurisdiction to deal with the service conditions of the Army
            Act and Rules, but, the present case, which relates to non-
            selection of the petitioner by the DRDO for the rank of Lt.
            General and it is not supersession under the Army Act or Rules,
D           it is under the DRDO Rules of the Office Memorandum dated
            23rd November, 1989. As such, this Tribunal cannot sit over
            the selection by DRDO to decide the issue whether petitioner
            has been correctly superseded or not, since the service
            conditions of the seconded officers under the DRDO is
            regulated by Office Memorandum dated 23rd November, 1979
E           and it is not under the Army Act and Rules. Therefore, this
            Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide this case of
            supersession of petitioner for promotion to the rank of Lt.
            General.
            13. In this view of the matter, we uphold the preliminary
F           objection of the learned Counsel for the respondent and direct
            the Principal Registrar to remit this case back to Hon’ble
            Delhi High Court to decide the matter in accordance with
            law.
            14. On the same lines is the case of Brig PJS Rangar & Brig
G           Anand Solanki (TA No. 221 of 2010). In this case the
            incumbents were permanently seconded to Director General
            of Quality Assurance. It is also governed by OM dated 28th
            October, 1978, as amended from time to time. In this case
            also the petitioners prayer is to quash the OM dated 18th
H           February, 2008, letter dated 15th May, 2008 and empanelment
   LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        569
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      order dated 16th June, 2008 and direct the respondents to           A
      give effect to the empanelment order dated 31st January, 2008
      and promote them to the rank of Major General in accordance
      with their seniority in the panel.
      15. The service conditions are governed by the OM dated
      28th October, 1978 and the non-selection of the petitioners         B
      are by Director General Quality Assurance of Ministry of
      Defence. There is no breach of any service conditions under
      the Army Act and Rules. The non-selection of the petitioner is
      on account of the service conditions as mentioned in OM
      dated 28th October, 1978, as amended from time to time.
      Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for          C
      the respondent, in this case is also upheld and consequently
      it is held that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in
      this matter and direct the Principal Registrar to remit this case
      back to Hon’ble Delhi High Court to decide the matter in
      accordance with law.”                                               D
      16. The above judgment has been referred to and relied by the
Tribunal.
       17. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Colonel G.S.
Grewal, (2014) 7 SCC 303, the same question relating lack of
jurisdiction of AFT came for consideration. The facts have been noticed   E
in Paragraph 3 of the judgment, which are quoted as below:-
      “3. The respondent joined the Indian Army as a Major.
      Indubitably, in that capacity he was subject to the discipline
      of the Army Act, 1950. It is a normal practice that the
      personnel belonging to the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Air          F
      Force or Naval Force, are seconded to the other offices under
      the Ministry of Defence, which include Department of Defence
      Production, Department of Defence Research and
      Development and Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare. We
      are concerned here with the Department of Defence                   G
      Production, which has Director General of Quality Assurances
      (“DGQA”, for short) as well as Defence Public Sector
      Undertaking (DPSU). The respondent was seconded to DGQA
      on 6-11-2004 in the rank of Major. At that time, it was
      temporary secondment.”
                                                                          H
570            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           18. A policy decision was taken, which adversely affected the
      respondent’s claim for further promotion in DGQA. He challenged the
      policy decision and consequently the order. Before the Tribunal, the
      judgment of Principal Bench in Maj. General S.B. Akali Etc. Etc.
      (supra) was relied on, which was brushed aside by the Tribunal. The
      Tribunal decided to entertain the application, however, observed that the
B
      same will not be treated as a precedent. The Union of India, aggrieved
      by the said order of the Tribunal has approached the Supreme Court.
      This Court considered the matter in the aforesaid light and set aside the
      order of the AFT and remitted the matter. This Court held that it was
      required to be examined as to whether the relief claimed was entirely
C     within the domain of the DGQA or for that matter, the Ministry of
      Defence or it can still be treated as Service Matter Under Section 3(o).
      Following was held in Para 26:-
            “26. No doubt, it is open to Mr Bhati to refer to the statutory
            provisions in the AFT Act or even the Army Act in support of
D           his submission. But many other documents of which the learned
            counsel is relying upon were not part of the record before the
            Tribunal. Secondly, as already pointed out above, no such
            aspects are considered either by the Chandigarh Bench in
            the impugned judgment or by the Principal Bench in Major
            General S.B. Akali case1. We may point out that merely
E           because the respondent is subject to the Army Act would not
            by itself be sufficient to conclude that the Tribunal has the
            jurisdiction to deal with any case brought before it by such a
            person. It would depend upon the subject-matter which is
            brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is also required
F           to determine as to whether such a subject-matter falls within
            the definition of “service matters”, as contained in Section
            3(o) of the AFT Act. In Major General S.B. Akali case1, the
            Principal Bench primarily went by this consideration. The
            subject-matter was promotion to the rank of Lieutenant
            General and this promotion was governed by the Rules
G           contained in the Policy of DRDO and not under the Army
            Act. Therefore, in the instant case, it is required to be examined
            as to whether the relief claimed is entirely within the domain
            of DGQA or for that matter, the Ministry of Defence or it can
            still be treated as “service matter” under Section 3(o) of the
H           AFT Act and two aspects are intertwined and inextricably
    LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           571
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      mixed with each other. Such an exercise is to be taken on the           A
      basis of documents produced by both the sides. That has not
      been done. For this reason, we deem it proper to remit the
      case back to the Tribunal to decide the question of jurisdiction
      keeping in view these parameters.”
       19. Although in the above case, this court did not decide finally as   B
to whether the claim of respondent G.S. Grewal in the said case could
be entertained by AFT or not. The Court remitted the matter to consider
as to whether the claim is entirely within the domain of the DGQA.
Thus, the jurisdiction of AFT in a case where a person claims permanent
secondment in DGQA, the nature of relief and the action challenged
have to be looked into for answering the question. A subsequent judgment      C
of this Court in the case of Mohammed Ansari Vs. Union of India &
Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 740, is also relevant in this context. In this case,
the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Border
Roads Engineering Service (BRES). The appellant was not granted
non-functional financial upgradation for officers of Organised Group A.       D
He made representation to the concerned authorities, which was turned
down. Thereafter, he filed Original Application No. 102 of 2012 before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the issue of
jurisdiction in favour of the appellant, which was opposed. The Tribunal
held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, Union of India filed a Writ      E
Petition for quashment of the order of the Tribunal. The High Court
framed the question as to whether a member of the GREF can be
regarded as member of Armed Forces. The High Court after referring
to Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and Central Civil Services (Control,
Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held that the Central Administrative   F
Tribunal had no jurisdiction and only remedy was to file an application
under Article 226. The appellant challenging the order of the High Court
came up before this Court. In the above context, this Court also examined
the question as to whether after coming into the force of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, it shall be the Armed Forces Tribunal which
shall deal with the controversy or the High Court has jurisdiction Under      G
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of this Court in
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Colonel G.S. Grewal, (supra) was
extensively quoted by this Court and after quoting Paragraph 26 of the
judgment, following was stated in Para 29:-
                                                                              H
572     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     “29. Thus, the Court in G.S. Grewal case clearly held that
      merely because the respondent is subjected to the 1950 Act
      would not by itself be sufficient to conclude that the Tribunal
      had jurisdiction to deal with any case brought before it by
      such a person. It would depend upon the subject-matter which
      is brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is also required
B
      to determine as to whether such a subject-matter falls within
      the definition of “service matter” as contained in Section 3(o)
      of the 2007 Act.
      20. This Court further laid down in Paragraphs 33 and 34:-
C     “33. The situation insofar as jurisdiction of the Armed Forces
      Tribunal (AFT) to hear the appeals arising out of court martial
      verdicts qua GREF personnel, however, appears to stand on
      a different footing. It is because the provisions of Chapter VI
      i.e. offences, Chapter VII i.e. punishment, Chapter X i.e.
      “courts martial”, etc. apply with full force, subject to minor
D     exceptions and modifications here and there, as applied to
      GREF. Therefore, the provisions of the 1950 Act dealing with
      various punishments inflicted by way of courts martial qua
      GREF personnel as applied can be agitated before AFT and
      AFT shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of
E     courts martial verdicts. There can be no doubt that in respect
      of said matters AFT shall have jurisdiction. Denial of
      jurisdiction to the said Tribunal would be contrary to the 1950
      Act and the provisions engrafted under the 2007 Act. To
      elaborate, right to approach AFT by the personnel of GREF
      who are tried by a court martial held under the very same Act
F     has to be recognised. At the same time, if the punishment is
      imposed on GREF personnel by way of departmental
      proceedings held under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 then
      obviously the same cannot be agitated before AFT since the
      penalty in such cases will not be one under the 1950 Act but
G     will be under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The distinction, as
      the law exists in the present, has to be done.
      34. From the aforesaid, the legal position that emerges is that
      AFT shall have jurisdiction (i) to hear appeals arising out of
      courts martial verdicts qua GREF personnel. To this extent
      alone AFT shall have jurisdiction. At the same time, if the
H
   LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           573
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       punishment is imposed on GREF personnel by way of                     A
       departmental proceedings held under the CCS (CCA) Rules,
       1965 the same cannot be agitated before AFT; and (ii) AFT
       shall have no jurisdiction to hear and decide grievances of
       GREF personnel relating to their terms and conditions of
       service or alternatively put “service matters”.
                                                                             B
       21. This Court in the above case has clearly held that AFT can
exercise jurisdiction if the action, which is complained flow from the
Army Act, 1950, the example of court martial verdict was given to which
the personnel of GREF were subject. This Court further held that in
event, the personnel of GREF had been administratively dealt with in the
departmental proceedings held under the CCS(CCA) Rules, the same             C
cannot be agitated before the AFT.
       22. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the action, which
is impugned before the AFT was the refusal of permanent secondment
of the appellant in DGQA by QASB. For permanent secondment of a
Commission Officer, there were orders issued by the Ministry of Defence,     D
which regulated the permanent secondment, i.e. Government Order dated
28.10.1978, as amended from time to time and the Government of India
O.M. dated 22.12.1993. Non-selection of the appellant which was
impugned in the application was by a different organisation, i.e., by QASB
of DGQA.
                                                                             E
        23. We thus are of the view that action impugned before the
Tribunal cannot be held to be service matter within the meaning of Section
3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
       24. The appellant, who has appeared in-person has further relied
on two provisions namely, Section 27 and Section 33 of the Army Act,
1950, which are extracted as below:-                                         F
       “27. Remedy of aggrieved officers.— Any officer who deems
       himself wronged by his commanding officer or any superior
       officer and who on due application made to his commanding
       officer does not receive the redress to which he considers
       himself entitled, may complain to the Central Government in           G
       such manner as may from time to time be specified by the
       proper authority.
       33. Saving of rights and privileges under laws.— The rights
       and privileges specified in the preceding sections of this
       Chapter shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any
                                                                             H
574             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            other rights and privileges conferred on persons subject to
             this Act or on members of the regular Army, Navy and Air
             Force generally by any other law for the time being in force.”
            25. Section 27 provides a remedy to aggrieved officers to submit
      a complaint to the Central Government, if he has been wronged by a
B     commanding officer or any superior officer. Present is not a case where
      any action of commanding officer or any superior officer of appellant
      was complained or questioned. Thus Section 27 has no application.
             26. Coming to Section 33 of the Act, which provides for “saving
      of rights and privileges under other laws”. The said provision indicates
C     that the provision saves the rights and privileges conferred on persons
      subject to Army Act, by any other law for the time being in force.” Few
      examples of such privileges are as under:-
             “(a) All Govt. pensions (including military persons) are immune
             from attachment in the execution of the decrees of civil courts;
D            s. 11 of pensions Act 1871, proviso (g) to s. 60 of Code of
             Civil Procedure 1908.
             (b) Receipts for pay or allowances of NCOs, or Sepoys when
             serving in such capacity need not be stamped; Indian Stamp
             Act, schedule 1.
E            (c) All officers, JCOs, WOs and OR of the regular Army on
             duty or on the march as well as their authorized followers,
             families, horses, baggage and transport are exempt from all
             tolls except certain tolls for the transit of barges etc. along
             canals; s. 3 of Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force ) Act 1901.”
F           27. The above provision has no application in facts of the present
      case. Present is not a case where the appellant is claiming any privilege
      conferred on persons subject to Army Act or by any other law in force.
      Section 33, thus, has no application.
             28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that
G     the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the application filed by
      the appellant was not maintainable before the AFT. AFT has returned
      the application of the applicant to take proceeding before competent
      authorities. In result, the appeal is dismissed.


H     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                       Appeal dismissed.
                        [2018] 4 S.C.R. 575                               575


      ADARSH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.                             A
                                  v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 129 Of 2018)
                        FEBRUARY 16, 2018                                 B
   [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
       Constitution of India – Art.32 – Petitioner sought directions
for prohibiting the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 from releasing/screening/
publishing feature film with direct or indirect references to the
                                                                          C
petitioner society’s land/building/membership – Petitioner alleged
that film has projected the society in an unacceptable manner and
that is likely to have some impact on the litigations which are pending
apart from affecting the reputation of the members of the society –
Held: A film with regard to a particular situation does not affect the
trial or the exercise of ‘error jurisdiction’ by the appellate court –    D
The Courts of law decide the lis on the basis of the materials brought
on record and not on the basis of imagination as is projected in
language of the theatre or a script on the celluloid – The doctrine
of sub-judice may not be elevated to such an extent that some kind
of reference or allusion to a member of a society would warrant the
                                                                          E
negation of the right to freedom of speech and expression which is
an extremely cherished right enshrined under the Constitution –
The right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute but
any restriction imposed thereon has to be extremely narrow and
within reasonable parameters – In instant case, the grant of
certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), after      F
consulting with the authorities of the Army, should dispel any
apprehension of the members or the society – Cinematograph Act,
1952.
      Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
       HELD : 1. A film with regard to a particular situation does        G
not affect the trial or the exercise of ‘error jurisdiction’ by the
appellate court. The courts of law decide the lis on the basis of
the materials brought on record and not on the basis of imagination
as is projected in the language of the theatre or a script on the
celluloid. [Para 8] [580-F-G]                                             H
                              575
576            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           2. In human history, there have been many authors who
      expressed their thoughts in their own words, phrases,
      expressions and also created whimsical characters which no
      ordinary man would conceive of. Further, a thought provoking
      film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way
      puritanical, rather it can be expressive and provoking the
B
      conscious or the sub- conscious thoughts of the viewer and if
      there has to be any limitation on it, such a limitation has to be as
      per the prescribed law. [Para 10] [581-D-E]
            3. The doctrine of sub-judice may not be elevated to such
      an extent that some kind of reference or allusion to a member of
C     a society would warrant the negation of the right to freedom of
      speech and expression which is an extremely cherished right
      enshrined under the Constitution. The moment the right to
      freedom of speech and expression is atrophied, not only the right
      but also the person having the right gets into a semi coma.
D     However, the said right is not absolute but any restriction imposed
      thereon has to be extremely narrow and within reasonable
      parameters. In the case at hand, the grant of certificate by the
      CBFC, after consulting with the authorities of the Army, should
      dispel any apprehension of the members or the society. [Para 17]
      [583-C-E]
E
            Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of
            India & Ors. 2018 (1) SCALE 382 – relied on.
            R. K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8
            SCC 106 : [2009] 11 SCR 1026; State of Maharashtra
F           v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386 :
            [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 68; Mushtaq Moosa Tarain v.
            Government of India (2005) SCC Online Bom. 385;
            Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film
            Certification & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 778; Devidas
            Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra &
G           Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 1 : [2015] 7 SCR 853 – referred
            to.
            Kingsley International Pictures Corporation v. Regents
            of the University of the State of New York 360 U.S. 684,
            688-89 (1959) – referred to.
H
     ADARSH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.                                   577
               UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                          Case Law Reference                                      A
[2009] 11 SCR 1026                  referred to                Para 4
[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 68              referred to                Para 5
2018 (1) SCALE 382                  relied on                  Para 8
(2018) 1 SCC 778                    referred to                Para 9             B
[2015] 7 SCR 853                    referred to                Para 13
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
129 of 2018.
       Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.                             C
       Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,
Ms. Himanshi Gupta, Sagar N. Pahune Patil, Pranjal Kishore, Advs.
for the Petitioner.
       DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1.The petitioner, a registered society, has
preferred this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking     D
appropriate directions for prohibiting the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from
releasing/screening/publishing feature film, namely, ‘Aiyaary’ with direct
or indirect references to the petitioner society’s land/building/membership,
for such an action is bound to affect the Right to Life under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution. It is also prayed that the said respondents           E
should be commanded to delete all those parts in the ensuing feature
film which has direct or indirect references to the society in question.
        2. It is contended by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, that the film, which is going to be released, has projected
the society in an unacceptable manner and that is likely to have some             F
impact on the litigations which are pending apart from affecting the
reputation of the members of the society. A newspaper article has been
brought on record to highlight how the script has been written and how
the dialogues have the innuendos to reflect on the image of the society
as well as its members. Learned senior counsel has highlighted that the
members of the society have built a reputation which is very dear to              G
their life and if the film is allowed to be released, the same shall destroy
the established reputation and the posterity will remember the image
projected in the film but not the real image which the members have.
According to Mr. Hegde, the “reel reflection” will garner the mindset of
the people rather than the “real life lived”.                                     H
578             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            3. It is not in dispute that the film ‘Aiyaary’ has already been
      given the requisite certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification
      (for short ‘CBFC’) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for brevity,
      ‘the Act’) and the said Board has also taken the suggestions from the
      competent authorities of the Army as a measure of caution. There can
      be no shadow of doubt that the Censor Board can grant a certificate and
B
      in the said decision making process, it can also consult the persons who
      can assist it to arrive at the condign conclusion. We do not intend to
      name the number of authorities which have been referred to in the
      pleadings.
             4. Learned counsel had laid emphasis on R.K. Anand v. Registrar,
C     Delhi High Court1 and the paragraph that has been commended to us
      is extracted below:-
             “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s
             reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless
             of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity cases, the
D            media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public
             hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial
             impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial, in
             public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not
             be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.”
E          5. A passage has also been referred to from the decision in State
      of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi2 which states thus:-
             “There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of
             trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic
             media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can
F            well lead to miscarriage of justice.”
            6. Our attention has been drawn to a few passages from the
      judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mushtaq Moosa Tarain v.
      Government of India3. As Mr. Hegde has laid immense stress on the
      paragraphs from the said judgment, we think it appropriate to reproduce
G     the same:-
             “56. The Censor Board has framed guidelines. These guidelines
             are framed under section 5b(2) of the cinematography act. One
      1
        (2009) 8 SCC 106
      2
        (1997) 8 SCC 386
H     3
        (2005) SCC Online Bom. 385
ADARSH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.                               579
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

 of the guiding factors is that visuals or words “involving defamation   A
 of an Individual or Body of Individual or contempt of court are not
 presented. These guidelines ensure that nothing should be
 permitted which amounts to interfering with the administration of
 justice. It is not as if the Censor Board has to be satisfied that
 visuals or scenes have in fact interfered with or obstructed the
                                                                         B
 course of justice or have adverse effect thereon. In other words,
 it is not as if the matter has to be decided by the Censor Board on
 the touch stone of Law of Contempt. Similarly, “defamation” as
 contemplated by the guidelines should not be construed as
 committing of tort of defamation as understood in law. Broadly,
 these guidelines are for the purposes of giving effect to the well      C
 settled principle that every right has a corresponding duty or
 obligation.
 xxx                         xxx                            xxx
 64. In the case of Hutchison, Ex parte McMAHON, reported in
 (1936) ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS ANNOTATED (VOL.                          D
 2) 1514, the King’s Bench has observed thus:-
 “Proprietors of cinemas and distributors of films must realise that,
 if they want to produce these sensational films, they must take
 care in describing them not to use any language likely to bring
 about any derangement in the carriage of justice.”                      E

 65. Grant of injunction or restraint order is not a gagging writ in
 the facts of this case. The Petitioner has made out a strong prima-
 facie case inasmuch as fair trial, which is part of Rule of Law and
 Administration of Justice, is an aspect which must prevail over
 individual’s right of free speech and expression. People’s right to     F
 know cannot be stretched to such an extent as would make
 mockery of Rule of Law. Petitioner’s right to fair and impartial
 trial must outweigh all such previleges and expectations. The
 balance of convenience is definitely in favour of an injunction
 inasmuch as the restraint against exhibition is for limited duration    G
 and the Petitioner’s right as above as well as public interest is in
 favour of such restraint. The Respondents have a commercial
 and business interest which is secondary. The loss to the
 Petitioner’s dignity and reputation is enormous. It would be
 irreparable as the viewers may form an opinion about his guilt.
                                                                         H
580               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A              66. Before we conclude, we cannot but observe that this trial is
               one of those important trials even in terms of history and in terms
               of reconciliation of people. If the people have to have a belief in
               truth and justice as abiding values having a primacy over force
               and violence, it is just and necessary that justice must not merely
               be done but must also appear to have been done. If a society
B
               wants to do justice and thereby have peace and stability, then the
               stream of justice has got to be maintained clean to the extent
               possible. It is equally essential that the dignity of any individual,
               even though he may be an accused, has to be maintained as far
               as it could be. Looking at it from this point of view as well, we
C              cannot but hold that the release of the film will have a prejudicial
               effect on fair administration of justice as well as on the image of
               the accused. We, therefore, hold that the Petitioner has made out
               a case for the injunction that he has sought on the ground that the
               release of the film would constitute contempt of court and his
               defamation.”
D
             7. Relying on the said judgment, it is contended by Mr. Hegde that
      as the matter is sub-judice, the release of the movie is likely to affect the
      stream of justice and order of stay of the release of the movie is called
      for. With all the humility at his command, Mr. Hegde has relied upon the
E     decision of the Bombay High Court which we have referred to
      hereinabove. We do not intend to comment on the said decision of the
      Bombay High Court because we are not aware whether the lis travelled
      to this Court or not and in any case, the principle stated therein cannot
      always be a guiding factor. Suffice it to say, the said case has to rest on
      its own facts.
F
             8. As it seems to us, a film with regard to a particular situation
      does not affect the trial or the exercise of ‘error jurisdiction’ by the
      appellate court. The courts of law decide the lis on the basis of the
      materials brought on record and not on the basis of imagination as is
      projected in the language of the theatre or a script on the celluloid. In
G
      this regard, we may reproduce a paragraph from the order passed in
      Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.4
      which deals with the release of the film, namely, ‘Padmaavat’. It reads
      as follows:-
      4
          2018 (1) SCALE 382
H
        ADARSH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.                               581
          UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

        “It has to be borne in mind, expression of an idea by any one            A
        through the medium of cinema which is a public medium has its
        own status under the Constitution and the Statute. There is a
        Censor Board under the Act which allows grant of certificate for
        screening of the movies. As we scan the language of the Act and
        the guidelines framed thereunder it prohibits use and presentation
                                                                                 B
        of visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other
        groups. Be that as it may. As advised at present once the
        Certificate has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption
        that the concerned authority has taken into account all the guidelines
        including public order.”
        9. In Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film                        C
Certification & Anr.5, this Court stated that a film or a drama or a novel
or a book is a creation of art and that an artist has his own freedom to
express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law. The Court
also stated that prohibitions should not by implication crucify the rights
of expressive minds.                                                             D
        10. The Court noted that in human history, there have been many
authors who expressed their thoughts in their own words, phrases,
expressions and also created whimsical characters which no ordinary
man would conceive of. Further, the Court stated that a thought provoking
film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical,
rather it can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-              E
conscious thoughts of the viewer and if there has to be any limitation on
it, such a limitation has to be as per the prescribed law.
        11. Elaborating the same, we may add that there can be
multitudinous modes, manners and methods to express a concept. One
may choose the mode of silence to be visually eloquent and another may           F
use the method of semi-melodramatic approach that will have impact. It
is the individual thought and approach which cannot be curbed.
        12. Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel, has also suggested that
though the freedom of speech and expression should not be curtailed,
yet this Court, on certain occasions, has protected the image and reputation     G
of the individuals by giving priority to the image of the person in society.
    13. In this regard, he has drawn inspiration from Devidas
Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.6. It is
5
    (2018) 1 SCC 778
6
     (2015) 6 SCC 1                                                              H
582            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     necessary to clarify here that in the said case, the question was with
      regard to poetic license wherein the Court observed that as far as the
      words “poetic license” are concerned, it can never remotely mean a
      license as understood in the language of law as there is no authority
      which gives a license to a poet; for the words of the poet come from the
      realm of literature. Further elaborating, the Court stated that the poet
B
      assumes his own freedom which is allowed to him by the fundamental
      concept of poetry and he is free to depart from the reality; hide ideas
      beyond myths which can be absolutely unrealistic or put serious ideas in
      satires, ifferisms, notorious repartees; take aid of analogies, metaphors,
      similes in his own style, compare life with sandwiches that is consumed
C     everyday or convey life is like peeling of an onion, or society is like a
      stew define ideas that can balloon into the sky never to come down and
      cause violence to logic at his own fancy.
             14. In this backdrop, the Court opined that a ‘poetic license’ can
      have individual features, deviate from norms, or other collective
D     characteristics or it may have a linguistic freedom wider than what a
      syntax sentence would encompass. We may note with profit that the
      controversy travelled to this Court as the trial court had framed charges
      under Section 292 IPC against the appellants and the High Court had
      declined to interfere. This Court observed that the language employed
      in the poem “I met Gandhi” was prima facie obscene because of the
E     language employed relating to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Nation.
      Though the Court quoted some stanzas of the poem, yet it thought it
      wise not to reproduce the said stanzas in entirety because of the words
      used. The Court did not adjudicate upon the entire controversy as the
      author of the poem had not challenged the order. The concept of obscenity
F     was judged in the background of “contemporary community standards
      test” and the Court ruled that when the name of Mahatma Gandhi is
      alluded or used as a symbol and obscene words are used, the concept of
      “degree test” in addition to contemporary community standards test is
      invokable. The Court further elaborated by stating that the “contemporary
      community standards test” becomes applicable with more vigour, in a
G     greater degree and in an accentuated manner. The Court was of the
      view that what can otherwise pass the contemporary community
      standards test would not be able to do so if the name of Mahatma Gandhi
      is used as a symbol or allusion or surrealistic voice to put words or to
      show him doing such acts which are obscene.
H
        ADARSH COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v.                                583
          UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

       15. While so stating, the Court concluded by leaving it to the poet        A
to put his defense at the trial explaining the manner and the context in
which he has used the words. In this context, the Court further opined
that the view of the High Court pertaining to the framing of charge
under Section 292 IPC cannot be said to be flawed.
       16. In our considered opinion, the reliance placed on the above-           B
mentioned judgment by Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel, does not
render any assistance. The law laid down in the said case rests on the
facts depicted therein.
        17. At this juncture, we may also state that the doctrine of sub-
judice may not be elevated to such an extent that some kind of reference          C
or allusion to a member of a society would warrant the negation of the
right to freedom of speech and expression which is an extremely cherished
right enshrined under the Constitution. The moment the right to freedom
of speech and expression is atrophied, not only the right but also the
person having the right gets into a semi coma. We may hasten to add               D
that the said right is not absolute but any restriction imposed thereon has
to be extremely narrow and within reasonable parameters. In the case
at hand, we are obligated to think that the grant of certificate by the
CBFC, after consulting with the authorities of the Army, should dispel
any apprehension of the members or the society.
                                                                                  E
       18. In this context, we may appositely reflect on an eloquent
passage from Kingsley International Pictures Corporation v. Regents
of the University of the State of New York7 wherein Potter Stewart
stated:-
          “It is contended that the State’s action was justified because the      F
          motion picture attractively portrays a relationship which is contrary
          to the moral standards, the religious precepts, and the legal code
          of its citizenry. This argument misconceives what it is that the
          Constitution protects. Its guarantee is not confined to the
          expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority.
          It protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes         G
          be proper, no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax.
          And in the realm of ideas it protects expression which is eloquent
          no less than that which is unconvincing.”
7
    360 U.S. 684, 688-89 (1959)
                                                                                  H
584                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            19. The nature of the present matter compels us to recapitulate
      that the human history is replete with struggles to get freedom, be it
      physical or mental or spiritual. The creativity of a person impels him not
      to be tied down or chained to the established ideals or get enslaved to
      the past virtues and choose to walk on the trodden path. He aspires to
      rejoice with the new ideas and exerts himself to achieve the complete
B
      fruition. That is the determination for moving from being to becoming,
      from existence to belonging and from ordinary assumption to sublime
      conception. The creative intelligence kicks his thinking process to live
      without a fixed target but toying with many a target.
             20. We would be failing in our duty if we do not note the last plank
C     of submission of Mr. Hegde. He would suggest that this Court may
      direct the producer and director of the film to add a disclaimer so that no
      member of the society would ultimately be affected by the film. The
      aforesaid submission on a first blush may seem quite attractive but on a
      slightly further scrutiny, if we allow ourselves to say so, has to melt into
D     oblivion. Whether there is the necessity of “disclaimer” or not has to be
      decided by the Censor Board which is the statutory authority that grants
      the certificate. In fact, when a disclaimer is sought to be added, the
      principle of natural justice is also attracted. To elaborate, the producer
      or director is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Court should
      not add any disclaimer for the asking. Addition of a disclaimer is a different
E     concept altogether. It is within the domain of the authority to grant
      certificate and to ask the director to add a disclaimer in the beginning of
      the movie to avoid any kind of infraction of guidelines. Though the
      suggestion is made in right earnest by Mr. Sanjay Hegde, yet we are
      impelled not to accept the same.
F            21. Consequently, the writ petition, sans merit, stands dismissed.


      Ankit Gyan                                               Writ Petition dismissed.



G




H