Holding

The High Court erred in granting the interim injunction; the right to broadcast on Doordarshan is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be curtailed without a valid restriction under Article 19(2) and prima facie evidence of grave prejudice.

Summary

Odyssey Communications, the producer of the TV serial 'Honi-Anhoni', appealed against a Bombay High Court interim injunction that barred telecasting episodes 12 and 13 on the ground that the serial spread superstitious beliefs. The Supreme Court held that the right to exhibit films on Doordarshan falls within the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and can be restricted only under the narrow grounds of Article 19(2). The petitioners had no statutory or contractual right to seek an injunction and failed to produce prima facie evidence of grave prejudice to public morality. Consequently, the High Court’s injunction was deemed an unjust infringement of the producer’s fundamental right. The Supreme Court set aside the interim order and allowed the appeal, while reserving judgment on broader questions about private broadcasting.

Issues considered

The extent to which the right to broadcast on Doordarshan is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).
Whether the petitioners possessed locus standi or a statutory/contractual right to obtain an interim injunction.
Whether the High Court was justified in granting an injunction without prima facie evidence of grave prejudice to public order or morality.
Whether the content of the serial was likely to spread false or superstitious beliefs warranting restriction.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 19(2)

Subjects

freedom of speechArticle 19interim injunctionpublic interest litigationtelevision broadcastingsuperstitioncensorshipDoordarshanright to expression

Judgment

A ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.
v.
LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS.

JULY 19, 1988

B IE.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)-Right
of citizen to exhibit films on T. V.-Subject to compliance of conditions
imposed by Doordarshan-Can be curtailed only under Art. 19(2).

C Article 226-Public interest Petition against exhibition of a TV
serial-A/legi<Jg that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs and
superstitions among people-Violation of any statutory or contractual
right not alleged-Whether High Court was justified in issuing interim
injunction order?

D The T. V. Serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was being telecast by Doordar-
shan on every Thursday between 9.00 P.M. and 9.30 P.M.

A writ petition was tiled by the Respondents stating that the
telecast was not in public interest as it had the effect of confirming blind
faiths, superstitious beliefs in stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition
E etc. and of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind beliefs.
The High Court issued an interim order of injunction not to telecast and
show episodes 12 and 13 of the serial.

Aggrieved by the interim order, the appellant, producer of the
said serial, had come on appeal by special leave. This Court, while
F granting special leave stayed the operation of the interim order passed
by the High Court.

The appellant contended that the said serial and in particular
episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the
contrary criticised and condemned superstition and blind faith, and at
G the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific
explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein and consi-
dered by people as supernatural phenomenon. It was also submitted that
the viewers were told that they should search for scientific reason
whenever any unusual occurrence takes place.

H Allowing the appeal,
486
ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA 487

HELD: I. Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is
always very zealously guarded by this Court. It can no longer be dis· A
puted that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan
subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is
a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed
under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India which can be
curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause (2) of B
Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The right is similar to the right
of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as news·
paper, magazines, advertisement hoardings etc. subject to the terms
and conditions of the owners of the media. [491B; 490C-E]

2. The High Court was in error in the present case in issuing the
interim order of injunction which is set aside. [492B] c
3.1 The objection to the exhibition of the film was that it was
likely to spread false or blind beliefs amongst the members of the
public. The Respondents had not asserted any right conferred on them
by any statute or acquired by them under a contract which entitled D
them to secure an order of temporary injunction. [491C-D]

3.2 As alleged by the Respondents, if all the episodes in the serial
' were offensive they could have approached the High Court as early as
possible within the first two or three weeks after the commencement of
the exhibition of the serial. But they waited till the exhibition of the E
11th episode of the serial was over and then filed the petition. They
had not produced any material apart from their own statements to
show that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the
community. [491E-G]

3.3 The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order of in- F
terim injunction in this case could infringe a fundamental right of the
producer of the serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence of
grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally by
the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an order of
temporary injunction. The exhibition of the serial in question was not
likely to endanger public morality. In the circumstances of the case the G
I balance of convenience lay in favour of the rejection of the prayer for
~
interim injunction. [491G-H; 492A]

[This Court reserved its opinion on the question whether a citizen
has a fundamental right to establish a private broadcasting station, or
television centre, to be decided in an appropriate case.I [490E) H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1523
of 1988.

Fro~ the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.1988 of the Bombay
High Court in W.P. No. 479 of 1988. 'Iii

B K.K. Venugopal, A.N. Haksar, S. Vazifdar, Raian Karan-
jawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Hardeep S. Anand for the
Appellant.

B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran, S.C.
Birala and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed
against an interim order of injunction issued by the High Court of
Bombay, Aurangabad Bench on 13th April, 1988 directing the three
D respondents; (1) Union of India, (2) Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Parliament House, New Delhi and (3) State of
Maharashtra, not to telecast and show episodes 12 and 13 of a serial
entitled 'Honi-Anhoni' pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 479 of
1988 filed by Respondent No. !, Lokvidayan Sanghatana, a registered
social organisation of Pune having its branch at Aurangabad and
E Respondent No. 2 Mahila Sangharsha Samiti, Aurangabad represen-
ted by one of its members Smt. Anagna Patil. The writ petition was in
the nature of a public interest litigation. The prayer in the writ petition
was that the respondents should be directed not to telecast the serial as
such telecasting was not in the public interest.

F The serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was being telecast by the Doordar-
shan, which was run by the Union of India, on every Thursday bet-
ween 9 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. The 12th episode of the said serial was to be
telecast on 14th April, 1988 and the 13th episode was to be telecast on
21st April, 1988. By virtue of the interim order passed on 13th April,
1988 episode No. 12 could not be telecast on 14th April, 1988.
G Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court the appel-
lant, Odyssey Communication Pvt. Ltd., which was the producer of
the serial 'Honi-Anhoni' filed the special leave petition before this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India out of which this
appeal arises. The said petition came up before this Court for consid-
eration on April 21, 1988. After hearing the learned counsel for the
H appellant this Court granted special leave to prefer an appeal against
ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 489

the order passed by the High Court and also stayed the operation of
A
the interim order datd 13th April, 1988 passed by the High Court until
further orders and permitted the Doordarshan to telecast the serial in
question. In view of the above order the 12th episode of the serial was
telecast on the 2 lst of April, 1988. The appeal was heard on the 28th of
April, 1988 and this Court reserved judgment on the appeal. At the
end of the hearing of the appeal on 28th April, 1988 the Court expres- B
sed that it would set aside the order passed by the High Court against
which the appeal had been filed and would give reasons in the course
of its judgment. Since the order of stay passed by the Court was
allowed to remain in force the 13th episode, which was the last episode
of the serial was telecast on the 28th April, 1988.

The grounds mentioned in the writ petition in support of the
c
prayer made in it were that in each and every episode telecast in the
serial an obscure and mysterious atmosphere was being created due to
the way of the presentation of the episodes and that it had created fear
in the minds of the common viewers and especially of children as the
serial had the effect of confirming blinds faiths, superstitious beliefs in D
stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition etc. and of spreading the unsci-
entific way of thinking and blind beliefs. It was further contended that
it was the duty of the State not to encourage blind beliefs amongst the
public by telecasting such episodes. It was on the basis of these
grounds the High Court was requested to grant the interim order of
injunction. The appellant was the producer of the said serial, yet the E
appellant was not made a party to the writ petition. But on its applica-
tion the appellant was impleaded as a party on 12.4.1988. On
13.4.1988 the High Court passed the impugned order of temporary
in junction. The appellant rushed to this Court immediately thereafter
with the above said special leave petition. The appellant has stated
before us that the said serial and in particular episodes 12 and 13 did F
not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the contrary criticised and
condemned superstition and blind faith as was ex facie apparent from
the scripts of episodes 12 and 13 produced before this Court. It is
stated that at the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor
gave a scientific explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed
therein and considered by people as supernatural phenomena. It is G
alleged that in the 13th episode after a scientific explanation of what
had taken place the viewers were told as follows:

"All those who without thinking spread blind faith
ought to feel ashamed of themselves. We r'equest all of you
that whenever any unusual occurrences takes place or a H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A seemingly improbable event occurs, before believing in it,
to reflect as to whether there is a scientific reason for it or is
it purely psychological by nature. If all of us exercise such
caution we believe that the malady of blind faith will soon
be eradicated by our society."
B
The appellant further pleaded that the High Court was in error in
issuing the order of injunction without giving a reasonable opportunity
to it (the producer), which was likely to be affected by the order, to
explain that the writ petitioners had no right to move the Court in the
circumstances of the case.
c
It can no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit
films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be
imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right of
freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Con-
D stitution of India which can be curtailed only under circumstances
which are set out in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India. The right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views
through any other media such as newspapers, magazines, advertise-
ment hoardings etc. subject to the terms and conditions of the owners >
of the media. We hasten to add that what we have observed here does
E not mean that a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a private
boardcasting station, or television center. On this question we reserve
our opinion. It has to be decided in an appropriate case. The relevant
part of Article 19 of the Constitution reads thus:

"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom
F of speech, etc.-(1) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

G (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause(!) shall affect
the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from
making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly rela-
H tions with foreign States, public order, decency or moral-
ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 491

ity, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or in-
A
citement to an offence .

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ·.· ............... .
Freedom of expression is a preferred right which .is always very
zealously guarded by this Court. B

It was not the case of the petitioners in the Writ Petition that the
exhibition of serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was in contravention of any specific
law or direction issued by the Government. They had not alleged that
the Doordarshan had shown any undue favour to the appellant and the
sponsoring institutions resulting in any financial loss to the public
exchequer. The objection to the exhibition of the film had, however,
c
been raised by tlhem on the basis that it was likely to spread false or
blind beliefs amongst the members of the public. They had not
asserted any right conferred on them by any statute or acquired by
them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order of
temporary injunction against which this appeal is filed. The appellant D
had denied that the exhibition of the serial was likely to affect prejudi-
cially the well-being of the people. The Union of· India and the
Doordarshan have pleaded that the serial was being telecast after fol-
lowing the prescribed procedure and taking necessary precaution. In
such a situation, the High Court should not have immediately pro-
ceeded to pass the interim orde of injunction. It was no doubt true that E
the 12th episode was to be telecast on 14th April, 1988 and the 13th
episode was to be telecast on 21st April, 1988. If the petitioners in the
writ petition had felt, as they had alleged in the course of the petition,
that all the episodes in the serial were offensive they could have
approached the High Court as early as possible within the first two or
three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the serial. F
But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th episode of the serial was
over and filed the petition only in the second week of April, 1988.
They had not produced any material apart from their own statements
to show that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to
the community. The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order
of interim injunction in this case would infringe a fundamental right of G
the producer of the serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence
of grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally
by .the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an
order of temporary injunction. We are not satisfied that the exhibition
of the serial in question was likely to e_ndanger public morality. In the
circumstances of the case the balance· of convenience lay in favour of H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A the rejection of the prayer for interim injunction. What we have stated.
here is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. The other questions of law
which may arise in ? case of this nature will have to be dealt with in an
appropriate case. We express no opinion on those questions in this
ca.se. We are, however, of the opinion that the High Court was in error
in the present case in issuing the interim order of injunr•ion against
B which this appeal is filed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set
aside the interim order of injunction passed by the High Court on the
13th of April, 1988. There is, however, no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.