Kerala High Court
Harish Vasudevan vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2020
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.7487 OF 2020(S)
PETITIONER/S:
HARISH VASUDEVAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. V.N. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
RESIDING AT 'HARITHAM', NILESHWAR,
KASARAGOD, KERALA - 671314.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
'A' WING SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
BY SRI. JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 2
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2020 S.Manikumar, CJ Instant public interest writ petition is filed by an advocate practicing in this Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)
(i) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the orders dated 06.03.2020 (Exhibits-P1 and P2) issued by Union of India against Asianet News TV Channel and Media One TV Channel. The prayers sought for in the writ petition are as follows:
i. "Declare that being critical towards Delhi Police and RSS is a part of the fundamental right of every citizen of India and it cannot constitute an offence as envisaged in any law;
ii. Declare that the reporting of any truthful or factual incident will not invite any offence under sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and any penal action by invoking the said provision is unconstitutional and opposed to public interest;
iii. Declare that Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(i) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 are violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to the parent Act.
iv. Declare that paragraph 5.9 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India is arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to the parent Act;W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 3
v. Declare that 'objectionable unauthorized content, messages or communication inconsistent with public interest' used in paragraph 8.1 of the Policy guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and ultra vires to the parent Act and that the issuance of the guidelines is beyond the powers conferred under the Act and the Rules and, therefore, bad in law;
vi. Declare that Exhibits-P1 and P2 have been issued arbitrarily and without any jurisdiction;
vii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash Exhibits-P1 and P2;"
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that,- In response to the passage of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which allows fast-tracked naturalization for illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan belonging to six religions viz., Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian, protests began all over India from December, 2019 onwards; that peaceful protests were going all over the country for about 2 months criticizing the Central Government in making religion a criteria for deciding citizenship of the country, violating the fundamental principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 25.02.2020, two media channels, viz., Asianet News and Media One TV had covered those riots in the north east part of Delhi and broadcasted them. Being aggrieved, respondent issued show cause notices on 28.02.2020 to both the media W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 4 houses for violation of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 and calling upon them to show cause as to why action as per the provisions of Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should not be initiated as disclosed form the final order. The media houses furnished reply to the said notices on 3.3.2020 by stating that whatever they had broadcasted was actually correct and did not attack any particular religion or community or did not promote anti national activity, as alleged by the respondent.
3. Thereafter, the respondent issued Exhibit-P1 order dated 06.03.2020, prohibiting transmission or re-transmission of Asianet News TV Channel for 48 hours on any platform throughout India w.e.f 19:30:00 hours on 6.3.2020 till 19:30:00 hours on 8.3.2020. The respondent has also issued Exhibit-P2 order dated 6.3.3020 to Media one TV channel, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
"Whereas it appeared that telecast of reports on North-East Delhi violence had been shown in a manner which highlighted the attack on places of worship and siding towards a particular community. Channel's reporting on Delhi violence seems to be biased as it is deliberately focusing on the vandalism of CAA supporters. It also questions RSS and alleges Delhi Police inaction. Channel seems to be critical towards Delhi Police and RSS. The order further states that such reporting could enhance the communal disharmony across the country when the situation is W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 5 highly volatile. The Ministry has time and again issued Advisories to all news channels to comply with the provisions of the rules. Due care and responsibility is expected while reporting news based on such incidents. However, it is abundantly clear that the channel has not adhered to the programme codes and has shown irresponsibility by not fully complying with them. After careful consideration of the case on the whole, the Ministry has come to the conclusion that Media One TV channel had violated Rule 6(1)(c) & (e) of the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder by telecasting said news regarding the North East Delhi violence."
4. Being aggrieved by the orders viz., Exhibits-P1 and P2, issued by the respondent-Union of India, prohibiting two prominent news television channels viz., Asianet News and Media One, for reporting the violence happened in Delhi, instant writ petition is filed on the following grounds:
(a) Petitioner has a fundamental right under the Constitution of India to know the truth and factual scenario happening in this country. Reporting of truth and facts as itself by visual and print media is an integral part of the Right to know of every Indian Citizen. Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders dated 06.03.2020 are violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
(b) Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, wherein the term 'decency' is cast so widely that virtually any broadcast on any issue or subject would be covered to be infringing decency and such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 6 of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total. This is excessive delegation of power to the executive. Thus, the same is violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent that it contains the term 'decency' and liable to be struck down.
(c) The truthful and factual reporting of any incident shall not invite the term 'decency' in Section 20 of the Act. A broadcasting person or company cannot decide whether the truthful reporting of an incident would tantamount to violation of Section 20(2) of the Act on that ground that it is indecent. Decency varies from persons to persons and unless a clear distinction is drawn between what is decent and what is indecent, through a guidelines, the power delegated by the Parliament to the Executive through Section 20(2) have to be considered as an excessive delegation and, therefore, unconstitutional.
(d) The term 'objectionable unauthorized content, messages or communication inconsistent with public interest' used in paragraph 8.1 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India is also violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to the parent Act and is liable to be struck down.
(e) The petitioner has an unbridled right to information and right to know which flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Curtailing the same through Exhibits- P1 and P2, which have been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act and paragraph 8.1 of the Policy Guidelines are directly infringing his fundamental rights.
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 7(f) It has to be noted that the respondent has no case whatsoever that both the media houses had broadcasted material which contained attack on religions or communities or visuals or works contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitude. Thus, respondent was not able to show that both media houses had violated Rule 6(1)(c) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. Hence, issuance of Exhibits-P1 and P2 is patently arbitrary, illegal and are liable to be set aside.
(g) The respondent also has no case that the broadcast contained material which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote ante-national attitudes. Thus, the respondent was not able to show that both media houses had violated Rule 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
(h) It has to be noted that both the media houses had stated in their replies as well as vehemently held that their broadcast were factual in nature and did not attract the provisions of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. The respondent has miserably failed to establish a case under the said provisions against the media houses while issuing Exhibits-P1 and P2.
(i) A mere perusal of Exhibit-P1 shows that the respondent has stated that the medial reporting/broadcast ought to have been in a 'balanced manner' and that such reporting could enhance the communal harmony of the country when the situation is highly volatile. This according to the petitioner is per se absurd and arbitrary. While reporting a particular W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 8 issue or live incident or a fact in an unbiased manner, truthfully, the media houses or persons cannot go either side hunting for news creation and maintain news reporting. In Exhibit-P2, it is alleged that the channel's reporting on the Delhi violence seems to be biased focusing vandalism of CAA supporters and criticizes inaction of the Delhi police. However, respondent does not have a case that the broadcast was factually incorrect, in accurate or misleading or that there was no violence being done by the CAA supporters in North East Delhi.
(j) A mere perusal of Exhibits-P1 and PP2 would reveal that respondent has exercised beyond its jurisdiction by ordering the media houses to prohibit transmission or re-transmission for 48 hours on any platform through out India. Exhibits-P1 and P2 were also published in the official gazette also. Area of prohibition was also not specified in the orders. The impugned orders suffer from lack of any jurisdiction or authority and are liable to be set aside.
(k) Petitioner has further contended that Rashtreeya Swayamsevak Sangh, commonly known as RSS, is neither a religion nor a community. It is not a religious group also. Questioning RSS and alleging Delhi Police inaction is not a punishable offence under any law in force. Being critical towards Delhi Police and RSS is not prohibited or regulated by any of the laws in the country.
(l) Perusal of Exhibits-P1 and P2 indicates that the very object sought to be achieved in and restriction imposed have no rational nexus. As per the relevant provisions of the Act, in the event of any broadcast which has been made in violation W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 9 of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e), the invocation of Section 20 would come into force so as to immediately stop the broadcast to prevent disruption of communal harmony. However, in the instant case, though the incident had occurred as early as 25.02.2020, Exhibits-P1 and P2 have been issued on 6.3.2020. This shows that the same has been issued in malafide interest."
5. Based on the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by misusing the provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and thereby issuing the impugned orders, respondent is denying and curtailing the 'Right to Know' of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, impugned orders are issued only to create fear amongst the visual media in this country for criticizing RSS and Central Government. The impugned orders were withdrawn within 24 hours of their issuance.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Exhibit-P1 order dated 6.3.2020 is extracted hereunder:-
"No. N-41014/2/2020-BC.III GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING 'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110001 Dated the 6th March, 2020 ORDER WHEREAS it had come to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that Asianet News TV channel telecast news reports on North-East Delhi violence on 25022020 at 18:58:34 - 19:09:19, 00:10:45 Hrs.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 10
WHEREAS Asianet News channel reported that riots continued in Delhi and death toll has reached 10. Armed rioters were attacking people after asking their religion. Hundreds of shops, houses and vehicles were set on fire and 160 people were injured in the riots. The rioters took over the streets as the Police remained mute spectator. Curfew was imposed in North East Delhi for a month. Channel correspondent PR Soni reported that violence continued at Jaffrabad like the previous day and rioters ruled the streets at Jaffrabad, Ashok Nagar and Maujpur. Delhi Police were mute spectators when rioters set ablaze mosques at Jaffrabad and Maujpur. Fresh tenders reached after two hours to put the fire of the mosque. Rioters blocked the commuters and attacked them after questioning their religion. Houses of Muslims were attacked at Hindu majority areas and Muslims retaliated. Rioters were firing at each other in the streets. Violence erupted the previous day, has turned into communal violence after a section of Hindus chanted Jai Sri Ram and Muslims chanted Azadi slogans. Hundreds of shops, houses and vehicles were burnt down. A petrol pump was set on fire. As the violence continued for the third day, no action was taken to contain the violence. The Central Government did not act to control the riots. Central forces reached the riot hit areas after long hours of the meeting of Union Minister Amit Shah. Delhi witnesses such a large riot after 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The violence continued and the fire on many vehicles has not been doused.
WHEREAS it appeared that telecast of reports on North-East Delhi violence had been shown in a manner which highlighted the attack on places of worship and siding towards a particular community.
WHEREAS, the said news reports telecast by Asianet News TV channel appeared to violate the following provisions of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994:
Rule 6(1)(c) provides that no programme should be carried in the cable service which contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes;
Rule 6(1)(e) provided that no programme should be carried in the cable service which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote and national attitudes;
Whereas, the Ministry had also issued an Advisory on 25.02.2020 in the matter advising the channels to strictly abide by the Programme Code of the cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 11
WHEREAS, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 20.02.2020 was issued to Asianet News Channel whereby it was called upon to show cause as to why action as per the provisions of Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of the permission granted and the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should not be taken against it.
WHEREAS, responding to the SCN, the channel, vide its letter dated 03.03.2020, has submitted following comments:
i. They have not violated the Programme Code prescribed in Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The reports published by them were factual and never intended to attack religions or communities by word or gesture. They have published the news stories with due care and caution and with utmost restraint after verifying the factual situation from the official authorities. ii. The allegations that telecast of reports on North East Delhi violence has been shown in a manner which highlights the attack on places of worship and siding with a particular community is incorrect and hence denied. The reports on North West Delhi violence on 25.2.2020 were Impartial and true reports of the untoward incidents that took place in the particular area wherein their reporters and crew were physically present. They never intended to cause publication of report siding towards a particular community. The reports regarding the violence on 25.02.2020 by anti-
social elements, irrespective of their community or religion were telecast by all media including Asianet News. This was all in accordance with their obligation as a responsible and experienced Media organization that upholds the values enshrined In the Constitution to safeguard their great democracy. They have been reporting news from 1995. During the last 25 years they have acquired acceptance and credibility as a responsible media and are much ahead of all other news channels in Kerala as far as viewership is concerned. They have reported riots and human tragedies across the state, country and abroad respecting the sensitivity and sensibility Involved. Never in the past were they accused of violation of any rule or code.
iii. Asianet News was reporting and monitoring the violence in Delhi from 23.02.2020 with utmost care, caution in compliance with the provision Cable Television Networks W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 12 Rules, 1994. On 24th also, their two correspondents were on field and exhibited restraint to avoid any provocation while reporting facts.
iv. On 25th, three reporters were in the field, reporting various incidents and updating the situation. They reported about a huge crows coming there chanting religious slogans and even threatening media persons. The crow went inside Ashok Nagar area destroying a place of worship. This happened when there were no policemen in the area and even after two policemen came, they were helpless. They reported these facts with a bona fide intention to solicit immediate intervention of authorities to save lives and property of Innocent people including women and children. These facts were reported from the field risking the life of reporters and crew with an object to bring to the notice of the authorities and public regarding the serious nature of violence and the need to protect the life and property of Innocent people living in the locality Irrespective of their caste, creed, religion or community. All these were done to discharge their social obligation as a responsible news channel.
v. On 25.02.2020, they had also telecast the interviews of victims of Maujpur who belong to the majority community. They recorded Interviews of residents of Yamuna Vihar too who belong to majority community. All reports were prepared by the same reporters without favoring any particular community. Even before receiving this notice, they were airing stories narrating the brotherhood between the two communities in the same locality and their appeal for peace and harmony. In addition, they have covered the miseries and sufferings of victims belonging to both sides and did a special 30 minutes episode with all versions and with an appeal to maintain peace and harmony. They mentioned the destruction of religious places in one or two areas and this was reported by National and International channels also. Their reporters even made efforts to rescue a 14 year old boy who was shot by alerting authorities and this boy is recovering now at GTB hospital. All these are positive gestures of Asianet News to uphold the sovereignty, integrity, security, secularism and public order of our Great Nation.
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 13vi. No words in their reports were contemptuous of any religious group or which promotes communal attitudes. They never meant, or had any intention, to air any programme which contained attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups which promoted communal hatred. vii. They have not done any programme intentionally to incite violence or contain anything against maintenance of law and order which promotes anti-national attitudes.
viii. The entire news stories were aired strictly following the advisory dated 25.02.2020. They are a quarter century old organization that has set an example in responsible journalism. If the Ministry still feel that they have touched the threshold, this was done inadvertently and submitted earlier, with a positive intention only. ix. Without prejudice to the above, if the Ministry feels that if any of the reports on North East Delhi violence was telecast in violation of provisions of Rules 6(1)(C) and 6(1)(e), they hereby tender the unconditional apology and regrets.
x. In view of the above facts and without prejudice, it is requested to appreciate their submission above and accept their contention that they have not acted in contravention of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(e), of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 or committed any acts to attract the provision of Section 20 of the Act, 1995. Therefore, it is prayed that all further proceedings on the basis of the SCN dated 28.02.2020 may be dropped.
The CD containing the cited telecast was examined in the Ministry. It is stated that the anchor/correspondent of the channel made the following remarks:
The violence of the previous day has continued from morning. The violence turned into communal violence after a group of Hindu people chanted Jal Sri Ram and the Muslims chanted Azadi slogans. The commuters on the roads are forced to chant Jai Sri Ram. Muslim brutally attacked. Union Home Ministry claims that 33 company central forces are deployed, but still violence continues in the areas. The Centre can control the violence within hours, but no action has been taken till now. The correspondent says the Centre give silent consent for the violence. The violence has turned out to W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 14 a communal riot from yesterday itself. I have witnessed the attack on Muslims.
The rioters asked my religion. I have not seen such a situation in Delhi and was forced to disclose my religion to continue reporting. Earlier in Delhi,, Sikh riots had happened in 1984. Today, we witness a similar situation. In the morning, I travelled to Jafrabad area. There I saw a boy who was shot at 11 o'clock in the morning. Not even a policeman went to that area till 4.45 In the evening. There was no ambulance to shift the boy to a hospital. The Police can stop the violence. Earlier police have stopped such Incidents, happened in 1984. Today we witness a similar situation. Army may be deployed to control the violence. But no such decisions have been taken. Union Home Minister announced that central forces will be deployed and the situation is under control. But, the situation is getting worse in the riot hit area. Central forces reach the riot hit areas after long hours of the meeting of Union Minister. The Centre has rejected Delhi Chief Minister's request to deploy central forces. The Union Ministry claimed that 33 company central forces were deployed but still violence continues in the area and also the Centre gave silent consent for the violence. While reporting such critical incident, the channel (Asianet News TV) should have taken utmost care and should have reported it in a balanced way. Such reporting could enhance the communal disharmony across the country when the situation is highly volatile.
The Ministry has time and again issued Advisories to all News Channels to comply by the provisions of the rules. Due care and responsibility is expected while reporting news based on such incidents. However, it is abundantly clear that the channel has not adhered to the Programme codes and has shown irresponsibility by not fully complying to them. The Ministry has come to the conclusion that Asianet News TV channel had violated Rule 6 (1)
(c)& (e) of the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder by telecasting said news regarding the North East Delhi violence.
WHEREAS, as per para 5.2 of the Guidelines for Uplinking from India, one of the basic conditions/obligations of the company permitted to uplink registered channels is that the company shall comply with the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder;
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 15WHEREAS, as per para 8.1 of the said guidelines, in the event of a channel found to have been/being used for transmitting any objectionable/unauthorized content inconsistent with public interest, the Central Government has the power to revoke the permission granted;
WHEREAS, as per para 8.2 of the said uplinking guidelines, the Central Government has the power to impose penalties for violation of any of the terms and conditions or other provisions of the said guidelines;
WHEREAS, in case of violation of Programme Code this Ministry has powers to suspend the permission of uplinking granted to a company for a period of 30 days in the event of first violation as per para 8.2.1, for 90 days in the event of second violation as per para 8.2.2 and revocation of permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to the remaining period of permission in the event of third violation as per para 8.2.3 of the said uplinking guidelines;
WHEREAS, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides that where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the () sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or
(ii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme;
WHEREAS, sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides that where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or the prescribed advertisement code referred to in section 6, it may by order regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of such programme;
AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority has decided to impose a penalty of prohibition of transmission/re-transmission of Asianet News TV channel on any platform throughout the Territory of India for a period of 48 hours:
Now, Therefore, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (2) & (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and under paras 8.1 & 8.2 of the guidelines for uplinking from India, orders to prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of Asianet News TV channel for 48 hours on any platform throughout India with effect from 19:30:00 W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 16 hrs. On 06th March, 2020 till 19:30:00 hrs. on 8th March, 2020.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
[AMIT KATOCH] Director (BC)
8. Exhibit-P2 order dated 6.3.2020 is extracted hereunder:
"No. N-41014/2/2020-BC.III GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING 'A' WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110001 Dated the 6 March, 2020 ORDER WHEREAS it had come to the notice of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting that Media One TV channel telecast news reports on North-East Delhi violence on 25.02.2020 at 06:10:02-06:47:07 and 00:30:22 Hrs.
WHEREAS, Media One channel while reporting on Delhi violence in its Bulletin carried a phone-in of its Delhi correspondent Hassaul Banna saying that vandals fired at an anti-CAA protest site from a rooftop from 2 pm to 9 pm and around 5 anti-CAA protesters were injured. Police refused to visit the spot and nob the vandals. According to anti-CAA protestors, police were present there the previous day during the Bharat Bandh called by Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekar Azad. Vandals also set ablaze tents set up by anti- CAA protesters in Chand Bagh. Vandals have succeeded in pushing back anti-CAA protesters from three protest sites by unleashing violence. The police were seen supporting people who were in favour of CAA. inactive during violence, vandalised the shops and fruit carts and set them ablaze. The channel alleged that Delhi Police remained inactive during violence, vandalised the shops and fruit cards and set them ablaze. The channel also reported that violence took place mostly in Muslim dominated area of Chand Bagh, Delhi. While telecasting the news, the channel carried the news of stone pelting, arson and injured people being taken to hospital.
WHEREAS it appeared that telecast of reports on North-East Delhi violence had been shown in a manner which highlighted the attack W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 17 on places of worship and siding towards a particular community. Channel's reporting on Delhi violence seems to be biased as it is deliberately focusing on the vandalism of CAA supporters. It also questions RSS and alleges Delhi Police inaction. Channel seems to be critical towards Delhi Police and RSS.
Whereas such telecast could incite violence and pose danger to maintenance of law and order situation, particularly when the situation is already highly volatile and charged up and riots are taking place in the area with reports of killings and bloodbath; and it could also stoke the feelings of anger, hatred and animosity among the communities and hurt their religious sentiments which could ultimately result into escalation of violence.
WHEREAS, the said news reports telecast by Media One TV channel appeared to violate the following provisions of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994:
Rule 6(1)(c) provides that no programme should be carried out in the cable service which contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes;
Rule 6(1)(e) provides that no programme should be carried in the cable service which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes;
Whereas, the Ministry had also issued an Advisory on 25.02.2020 in the matter advising the channels to strictly abide by the Programme Code of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
WHEREAS, show cause notice (SCN) dated 28.02.2020 was issued to Media One Channel whereby it was called upon to show cause as to why action as per provisions of Uplinking/Downlinking Guidelines, the terms and conditions of permission granted and the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should taken against it.
WHEREAS, responding to the SCN, the channel vide its letter dated 03.03.2020 submitted following comments:
i. The Ministry's Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the contents thereof are insufficient as to what Ministry is advertising to in particular. The news statements or W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 18 the visuals at the particular newscasts in question allegedly constitute breach of Rule 6(c) or (e) are lacking the S.C.N, in the absence of which it is not possible to furnish proper and comprehensive explanation. Therefore, it is requested to provide the specific statements or visuals, which according to the Ministry constitute violation of Rule 6(c) or (e). ii. The Notice stating the timing of the telecast of the news in question is not correct. On facts, the notice says that the timing of the incident was at 00.03 am, In fact there was a commercial break from 00.29 to 00.32 after which there was a recorded programme "Weekend Arabia".
iii. There was no restriction on journalists or common people from entering the areas where violence was taking placed and no prohibitory order was therein force. Even the Advisory sated 25.02.2020 referred to in the SCN was general in nature in terms of Rule 6(c) and (e) of the Rules and there was no specific direction as issued in some other instance earlier. iv. The notice admits that Media One was reporting about the violence while agitating against and in favour of CAA was taking place in north east Delhi. It is a fact that mass rallies, sit-in agitations etc. against CAA was taking place all over India and violence occurred only in north east Delhi where, as you have stated "people who were in favour of CAA" also were present.
v. It is reiterated that the news reports telecast by Media One about the Incident, which happened in north east Delhi do not constitute any breach of Rule 1994. It is the lawfully accepted duty of the media under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India to bonafide investigate and report news truly and correctly. They have only discharged that duty. Rules 6 (c) and (e) are subject to the fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. As a recognized news channel, the news in question telecast by Media One is in exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 19
vi. Before the Ministry takes any further step in pursuance to the Show Cause Notice, there is a legal requirement of natural justice which cannot be done merely by exchange of SCN and reply within 48 hours.
vii. The allegations made in para 2 of the SCN are not correct, and are arbitrary and unreasonable. The Ministry has conveniently omitted to consider several news reports telecast by us on 25.02.2020. They had reported that the Government has appreciated the situation and are doing everything possible to curb violence and bring the situation under control. It was reported by them that the Police have set up barricades and had reported that the Home Ministry should give stringent instruction to the police to act responsibly to ensure law and order. They have also repeatedly explained the steps taken by the authorities to ensure peace and order. The news reports regularly covered orders to deploy paramilitary force and announcement of curfew in several places. The directions of the Central Government of stringent actions were included in the headlines. They also reinforced the Government's determination to end violence. These parts of the news reports were not considered by the Ministry while issuing the SCN. Instead one sided, discriminatory allegations are made against, which is unreasonable, unjustified and illegal. The Government has to act fairly and reasonably, and consider all the facts, material and circumstances. viii. The allegations made in para 2 of the SCN and the truth thereof are matters of record in videos recorded and telecast by several other new channels and newspaper reports. Journalists, TV crews on the spot had given live reports about the incidents. Further the local residents also were witnesses to the incidents. Their evidence also is necessary and we are prepared to furnish, for which an opportunity has to be given.
ix. Their report was similar to other reports. They did not incite violence which took place and the situations getting out of hands, it is necessary to emphasize that there is no incitement on the part of W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 20 their channel which is dedicated to inform the public. Nor are there any particulars relating thereto alleged in the notice.
x. The actual contents of the programme reports are based on the eye witnesses account and what the journalist saw. It is similar to other reports. They have maintained what was reported to them and what they saw.
xi. It was widely reported by many that the riots happened to be planned. Former Commissioner of Police such as Mrs. A.R.Sharma had that the situation was out of control and the Police should have acted earlier. The Chief Minister of Delhi has also made a statement that those who indulged in violence are outsiders which means that the violence was pre- planned. By targeting them, the Ministry is acting malafide and discriminatory. What they reported was already in public domain.
xii. With respect, there cannot be any coercive action in pursuance of the SCN without the due process of law. xiii. They demand a proper hearing in person. This is a matter to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be collected from local residents, journalists, who were broadcasting and telecasting the events live, including our reporters and photographs of the events published newspaper, international media, comments of other foreign press reporters etc. Since that matter involves a substantial question of freedom of press guaranteed under the Constitution, a detailed adjudication is necessary.
The CD containing the cited telecast was examined in the Ministry. It is stated that the anchor/correspondent of the channel made the following remarks:
It seems the vandals and police are hand in glove. Govt has not taken initiative for any talks with anti-CAA protesters and only courts have given ear to the anti-CAA protesters. Govt's cold shouldered approach towards anti-CAA protesters is the main reason behind ongoing protests in the national capital. The provocative speech of BJP leader in Jafrabad has led to the violence and it seems vandals were prepared to target anti-CAA protesters. Delhi Police has failed to register an FIR for hate W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 21 speech. AAP Govt in Delhi has also failed the people by not taking a stand on Delhi violence. But most significant thing is the inefficiency of Delhi Police in containing the violence. In many areas Police paved the way for vandals to roam free with weapons and carry out attacks and arson.
Union Home Ministry has stated that the situation is under control but in reality the situation is getting out of hand. Such reporting could enhance the communal disharmony across the country when the situation is highly volatile. The Ministry has time and again issued Advisories to all News Channels to comply by the provisions of the rules. Due care and responsibility is expected while reporting news based on such incidents. However, it is abundantly clear that the channel has not adhered to the Programme codes and has shown irresponsibility by not fully complying to them. After careful consideration of the case on the whole, the Ministry has come to the conclusion that Media One TV channel had violated Rules 6 (1)(c) & (e) of the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder by telecasting said news regarding the North East Delhi violence.
WHEREAS, as per para 5.2 of the Guidelines for Uplinking from India, one of the basic conditions/obligations of the company permitted to uplink registered channels is that the company shall comply with the Programme Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed thereunder; WHEREAS, as per para 8.1 of the said guidelines, in the event of a channel found to have been/being used for transmitting any objectionable/unauthorized content inconsistent with public interest, the Central Government has the power to revoke the permission granted;
WHEREAS, as per para 8.2 of the said uplinking guidelines, the Central Government has the power to impose penalties for violation of any of the terms and conditions or other provisions of the said guidelines;
WHEREAS, in case of violation of Programme Code this Ministry has powers to suspend the permission of uplinking granted to a company for a period of 30 days in the event of first violation as per para 8.2.1, for 90 days in the event of second violation as per para 8.2.2 and revocation of permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to the remaining period of permission in the event of third violation as per para 8.2.3 of the said uplinking guidelines;W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 22
WHEREAS, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides that where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the (i) sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or (iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme;
WHEREAS, sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides that where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or the prescribed advertisement code referred to in section 6, it may by order regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of such programme;
AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority has decided to impose a penalty of prohibition of transmission/re-transmission of Media One TV channel on any platform throughout the Territory of India for a period of 48 hours;
Now, Therefore, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections (2) & (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and under paras 8.1 & 8.2 of the guidelines for uplinking from India, orders to prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of Media One TV channel for 48 hours on any platform throughout India with effect from 19:30:00 hrs. on 06th March, 2020 till 19:30:00 hrs. On 08th March, 2020.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
[AMIT KATOCH] Director (BC)"
9. Statement and Objects of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 read thus:
"An Act to regulate the operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
10. As per Section 2(g) of the Act, 'programme' means any television broadcast and includes- (i) exhibition of films, features, dramas, W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 23 advertisements and serials; (ii) any audio or visual or audio-visual live performance or presentation, and the expression "programming service"
shall be construed accordingly.
11. Section 5 of the Act states that,- No person shall transmit or re-
transmit through a cable service any programme unless such programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code.
12. Section 19 of the Act deals with the power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in a public interest and the same reads thus:
"Where any authorised officer thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, he may, by order, prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re- transmitting any programme or channel if, it is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 and advertisement code referred to in section 6 or if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity."
13. Section 20 of the Act deals with the power to prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest and the same reads thus:
"(1) Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in such W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 24 areas as it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(2) Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the--
(i) sovereignty or integrity of India; or
(ii) security of India; or
(iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or
(iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme.
(3) Where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or the prescribed advertisement code referred to in section 6, it may by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re- transmission of such programme."
14. Section 22 of the Act speaks about the power to make rules and the same is extracted hereunder:
"(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the eligibility criteria for different categories of cable operators under sub-section (2) of section 4; (aa) the form of application, documents to be accompanied and the fees payable under sub-section (4) of section 4;W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 25
(aaa) the terms and conditions of registration under sub- section (6) of section 4;
(aaaa) the appropriate measures under sub-section (2) of section 4A for implementation of the notification under sub- section (1) of that section;
(b) the programme code under section 5;
(c) the advertisement code under section 6;
(d) the form of register to be maintained by a cable operator under section 7;
(da) the specifications of interference standards for interfering with any telecommunication system under section 10;
(e) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."
15. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Ordinance, 1994 W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 26 (Ordinance No.9 of 1994), the Central Government have framed the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. Rule 6 of the said rules reads thus:
"6. Programme Code. - (1) No programme should be carried in the cable service which:-
(a) Offends against good taste or decency:
(b) Contains criticism of friendly countries;
(c) Contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes;
(d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths;
(e) Is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote-anti- national attitudes;
(f) Contains anything amounting to contempt of court;
(g) Contains aspersions against the integrity of the President and Judiciary;
(h) Contains anything affecting the integrity of the Nation;
(i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country;
(j) Encourages superstition or blind belief;
(k) Denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a women, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals;
(l) Denigrates children;
(m) Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups
(n) Contravenes the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
(o) Is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition Provided that no film or film song or film promo or film trailer or music video or music albums or their promos, whether produced in India or abroad, shall be carried through cable service unless it has been W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 27 certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)) as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition in India.
Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, the expression "unrestricted public exhibition" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952); (2) The cable operator should strive to carry programmes in his cable service which project women in a positive, leadership role of sobriety, moral and character building qualities.
(3) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any programme in respect of which copyright subsists under the Copyright Act, 1972 (14 of 1972) unless he has been granted a licence by owners of copyright under the Act in respect of such programme.
(4) Care should be taken to ensure that programmes meant for children do not contain any bad language or explicit scenes of violence.
(5) Programmes unsuitable for children must not be carried in the cable service at times when the largest numbers of children are viewing.
(6) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any television broadcast or channel, which has not been registered by the Central Government for being viewed within the territory of India.
PROVIDED that a cable operator may continue to carry or include in his cable service any Television broadcast or channel, whose application for registration to the Central Government was made on or before 11th May, 2006 and is under consideration, for a period upto [31st May, 2008]1 or till such registration has been granted or refused, whichever is earlier.
PROVIDED further that channels uplinking from India, in accordance permission for uplinking granted before 2nd December, 2005, shall be treated as registered television channels and can be carried or included in the cable service."
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 2816. Clauses 5 and 8 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India, which speak about General Terms and Conditions, and offences and penalties, are extracted hereunder:
"5. GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS 5.1 The company can uplink either in C or Ku Band. Uplinking in C Band would be permitted both to Indian as well as foreign satellites. However, proposals envisaging use of Indian satellites will be accorded preferential treatment. On the other hand, uplinking in Ku Band would be permitted through Indian satellite only, subject to the condition that this permission is not used to run/operate DTH service without proper license, to which separate guidelines apply. Satellite to be used should have been coordinated with INSAT System.
5.2 The company shall comply with the Programme & Advertising Codes, as laid down in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed there under.
5.3 The company shall keep record of the content uplinked for a period of 90 days and produce the same before any agency of the Government, as and when required.
5.4 The company shall furnish such information, as may be required by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, from time to time.
5.5 The company/channel shall provide the necessary monitoring facility, at its own cost, for monitoring of programmes or content by the representatives of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting or any other Government agency as and when so required.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 29
5.6 The company shall permit the Government agencies to inspect the facilities as and when required.
5.7 The company shall comply with the terms and conditions or Wireless Operational License to be issued by the WPC Wing, Ministry of Communications & IT.
5.8 The Company shall ensure its continued eligibility as applicable through out the period of permission and adhere to all the terms and conditions of the permission, failing which the company shall be liable for penalty as specified in Para 8 below.
5.9 The Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting shall have the right to suspend the permission of the company for a specified period in public interest or in the interest of rational security to prevent its misuse. The company shall immediately comply with any directives issued in this regard.
5.10 It will be obligatory on the part of the company to take prior permission from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting before effective any change in the CEO/Board of Directors.
8. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 8.1. In the event of a channel/teleport/SNG/DSNG found to have been/ being used for transmitting/uplinking any objectionable unauthorized content, messages or communication inconsistent with public interest or national security or failing to comply with the directions as per para 5.9 above, the permission granted shall be revoked and the company shall be disqualified to hold any such permission for a period of five years, apart from liability for punishment under other applicable laws.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 30
8.2. Subject to the provisions contained in para 8.1 of these guidelines, in the event of a permission holder violating any of the terms and conditions of permission, or any other provisions of the guidelines, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting shall have the right to impose the following penalties.
8.2.1. In the event of first violation, suspension of the permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to a period of 30 days.
8.2.2. In the event of second violation, suspension of the permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to the remaining period of permission.
8.2.3. In the event of third violation, revocation of the permission of the company and prohibition of broadcast up to the remaining period of permission.
8.2.4. In the event of failure of the permission holder to comply with the penalties imposed within the prescribed time, revocation of permission and prohibition of broadcast for the remaining period of the permission and qualification to hold any fresh permission in future for a period of five years.
8.3. In the event of suspension of permission as mentioned in Para 5.9 or 8.2 above, the permission holder shall continue to discharge its obligations under the Grant of Permission Agreement including the payment of fee.
8.4. In the event of revocation of permission, the fees shall be forfeited.
8.5. All the penalties mentioned above shall be imposed only after giving a written notice to the permission holder."W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 31
17. What is meant by 'public interest'. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.(Per Cambel C.J., R. v. Bedfordshire 24 L.J.Q.B. 84)"
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest"
is defined as follows :
"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
18. Let us consider few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to what 'public order' means:-
"(1) In Revana Siddaiah v. State of Mysore, reported in (1952) Crl.L.J. 1526, it has been held that 'public order' has a comprehensive meaning so as to include public safety in its relation to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of public order involves consideration of public safety. They are closely allied concepts.
(2) In Menon, M.P. v. State (1953) Cr.LJ 1786, it has been held that the 'public order' in the State list must be interpreted to include public safety in its relation to maintenance of public order, as both of them being interdependent.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 32
(3) The difference between the law and order and public order has been very succinctly stated in Ram Manohar Lohiya (Dr.) v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 740, wherein, it is stated that: "It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting 'security of State', 'law and order' also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting 'public order'. One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. But using the expression "maintenance of law and order" the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules."
(4) In Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1970 SC 852, at Paragraph 14 and 15, the Apex Court, held as follows:
"Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof. It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the grounds that they were disturbing public order. The W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 33 contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act. A District Magistrate is therefore entitled to take action under s. 3(1) of the Act to pre- vent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances."
(5) In Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 98, it has been held that,-
"The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order, or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon society. The test is:
Does it lead to a disturbance of the even tempo of the life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order, or, does it affect merely an individual without affecting the tranquility of society."
(6) In the above reported case, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hidayatullah, had an occasion to deal with the question of 'public order' and 'law and order'. In this judgment, by giving various illustrations, very serious effort has been made to W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 34 explain the basic distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order'. The relevant portion reads as hereunder:
"3....."Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. Take for instance, a man stabs another. People may be shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the community keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may dislike the act. Take another case of a town where there is communal tension. A man stabs a member of the other community. This is an act of a very different sort. Its implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of life and public order is jeopardised because the repercussions of the act embrace large sections of the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different. Take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chamber maids. He may annoy them and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a fracas with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 35 places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its affect upon the public tranquillity there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. It means therefore that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society."
(7) Distinguishing the aspects of "Law and Order" and "Public Order", in Amiya Kumar Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2259, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the true distinction between the areas of "law and Order" and "public Order" lies not merely in the nature of quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case, it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore, touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect "public Order".
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 36(8) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Babul Mitra v. State of W.B. [(1973) 1 SCC 393] had an occasion to deal with the question of 'public order' and 'law and order'. The Court observed that the true distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question upon society. The Court pointed out that the act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ but in its potentiality it may be very different.
(9) In Dipak Bose v. State of W.B. [(1973) 4 SCC 43], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' by giving illustrations. Relevant portion reads as under:
"4.....Every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are the spectators. But that does not mean that all of such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. There is nothing in the two incidents set out in the grounds in the present case to suggest that either of them was of that kind and gravity which would jeopardise the maintenance of public order. No doubt bombs were said to have been carried by those who are alleged to have committed the two acts stated in the grounds. Possibly that was done to terrify the respective victims and prevent them from offering resistance. But it is not alleged in the grounds that they were exploded to cause terror in the locality so that those living there would be prevented from following their usual avocations of life. The two incidents alleged against the petitioner, thus, pertained to specific W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 37 individuals, and therefore, related to and fell within the area of law and order. In respect of such acts the drastic provisions of the Act are not contemplated to be resorted to and the ordinary provisions of our penal laws would be sufficient to cope with them."
(10) In Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal reported in (1975) 4 SCC 143 : AIR 1975 SC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the acts which "Law and Order" are not different from the acts which affect "public Order". Indeed, a state of peace or orderly tranquility which prevails as a result of the observance or enforcement of internal laws and regulations by the Government, is a feature common to the concepts of 'law and order' and 'public order'.
(11) The Hon'ble Apex Court Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Admn. [(1982) 2 SCC 403] clearly spelled out a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'. In this case, the Court observed as under:
"13.The true distinction between the areas of 'public order' and 'law and order' lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of 'law and order' and 'public order' is a fine one but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 38 which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order 17??It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act of violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. Some offences primarily injure specific individuals and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the method of control."
(12) In Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P and others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 400, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the contravention 'of law' always affects 'order' but before it could be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. One has to imagine three concentric circles, the largest, representing ?law and order?, the next representing, "public order" and the smallest, representing 'security of State'. An act may affect 'law and order' but not 'security of the State'. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that one must be careful in using these expressions.
(13) In State of U.P v. Hari Shankar Tewari, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 490, the majority opinion of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Dixit vs. State, (Full Bench) extracted in Hari Shankar Tewari's case reads as follows:-
"A solitary assault on one individual which may well be equated with ordinary murder can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. It can only raise a 'law and order' problem and no more. Assaulting an individual in a bus or train on account of enmity may affect only certain W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 39 individuals; but if the assault is made indiscriminately in the bus or train and passengers are harassed indiscriminately, the same would be likely to endanger public order as this kind of incident is bound to have such impact that it will disturb the even tempo of life of the community. The act or incident which may be attributed to the detenu may be reprehensible and yet if it concerns only specific individuals and it has no impact on the general members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of life of the people, it cannot be held to be an activity prejudicial to public order."
(14) In Angoori Devi v. Union of India, [AIR 1989 SC 371], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public order.
(15) In Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police reported in (1989) Supp 1 SCC 322, at Paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"A person may be very fierce by nature, but so long as the public generally are not affected by his activities or conduct, the question of maintenance of public order will not arise. In order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be materials to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public. If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upset- ting the even tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 40 order. The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of 'public order'."
(16) In Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad reported in (1989) 4 SCC 43, the petitioner therein was clamped under the detention laws, describing him as a dangerous and terrible person, in the area. He was alleged to have committed offences, affecting human body in the area, by holding deadly weapons; robbing and demanded money in the area in drunken condition. Statement of four persons, residing in the area, were recorded by the Police. In some of the cases, the petitioner therein was acquitted. Though statements were recorded, names and addresses of the witnesses, were disclosed, because they were afraid of damage to their person, and property and their safety. It was contended that the petitioner therein had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. After observing that the cases registered against the petitioner therein disclosed only particular persons, which has nothing to do with the maintenance of public order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 13, held as follows:
"The other three cases which are under investigation also relate to assault to private individuals and they have nothing to do with the disturbance of even tempo of the life of the community or of men of a particular locality nor does it affect the even flow of life of the public as a whole. Section 3(1) clearly mandates that the order of detention can be made only when the State Government or its authorised officer has come to a subjective satisfaction that a person is required to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Sub- section W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 41 4 embodies a deeming clause to the effect that a person should be deemed to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when such person is engaged in any activities as a dangerous person which affect ad- versely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Explanation 2 clause 4 further provides that for the purpose of this sub-section public order shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub-section directly or indirectly, is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or wide-spread danger of life, property or public health. Coming to this particular case, the criminal cases mentioned in the grounds do not refer to any dangerous, harmful or adverse act or alarm which gives rise to a feeling of insecurity for the general public amongst the persons of a locality. The criminal cases are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a law and order problem and it has nothing to do with maintenance of public order. Its reach and effect is not so deep as to affect the public at large. It does not create or tend or create any panic in the mind of people of particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order. There is nothing to show that the above activities of the petitioner have affected or tended to affect the even tempo of fife of the community. An act may create a law and order problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the maintenance of public order."
(17) In T.Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 456, the detenue threw a W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 42 knife towards a Minister, which according to the State was with an intention to kill him, but he missed the target, later on, he was overpowered by the police. A case under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was registered and that he was detained. One of the grounds alleged was that there is no public order and it was only a case of law and order. After extracting the incident as described in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 17 of the judgment, on the aspect, as to whether the said act falls within the parameters of public order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"The question which falls for consideration is whether single incident of murderous assault by the detenu and his associates on the Minister at the Seminar held at Dry Chilly Merchants' Association Kalai Arangam Hall was prejudical to the maintenance of public order. Any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence is bound to some extent affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order problem but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. There is basic difference between law and order' and 'public order', this aspect has been considered by this Court in a number of decisions, see: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] 1 SCR 709; Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 635 and Shymal Chakra- borty v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta & Anr., [1970] 1 SCR 762. In these cases, it was emphasised that an act disturbing public order is directed against individuals which does not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public peace and tranquillity. 1t is the degree of disturbance and its W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 43 effect upon the life of the community in the locality which determines the nature and character of breach of public order. In Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 SCR 288, the Court held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order, or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. This view was reiterated in Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 1 SCC 498; Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, [1970] 3 SCR 360; S.K. Kedar v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 816; Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 831; Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 845 and Amiya Kumar Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 2 SCC 672."
19. The cause of action for the writ petition is founded on Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders passed by the respondent against two TV Channels specified above, prohibiting transmission or re-transmission for 48 hours of any platform throughout India w.e.f 19:30:00 hours on 6.3.2020 till 19:30:00 hours on 8.3.2020, by exercising powers conferred under sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the Guidelines. Order has been issued for breach of Rules 6(1)(c) & 6(1)(e) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
20. Rule 6 of Rules, 1994 prohibits any program carried out in cable service, which is in violation of clauses contained under sub-rule (1) of Rule
6. Clause (c), as stated above, prohibits any programme which contains W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 44 attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promotes communal attitudes and clause (e) prohibits any programme that is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promotes anti-national attitudes. On the basis of the alleged violation of the abovesaid clauses, notices were issued to the TV Channels, their objections were received and thereafter, impugned orders, as extracted above, were passed by the respondent. It is evident from Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders that subject issue is based on various factual circumstances and the respondent has taken a decision after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the said TV Channels. Therefore, the challenge made by the public interest litigant, i.e., a lawyer practicing in this Court is against the statutory orders passed by the respondent.
21. Before proceeding further, let consider a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as to who is a person aggrieved.
"The words "persons aggrieved" are of wide import in the context and provisions of the Statute.
(i) In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar and Others reported in (1975) 2 SCC 702, while considering Sections 37 and 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"28. Where a right of appeal to Courts against an administrative or judicial decision is created by statute the W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 45 right is invariably con fined to a person aggrieved or a person who claims to be aggrieved. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved."
Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the back ground of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words "persons aggrieved" in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal rights or burdens or financial interests. The test is whether the words "person aggrieved"
include "a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests."
It has, therefore, to be found out whether the Bar Council has a grievance in respect of an order or decision affecting the professional conduct and etiquette.
38. The term "lis" is not con fined to litigation by means of a suit in a Court of law. In Butler v. Mountgarret (1859) 7 HLC 633 at p. 641, it was held that a "suit is not necessary to W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 46 constitute lis". It was pointed out there that "a family controversy capable of being litigated is a lis mota". In B. Johnson & Company (Builders) v. Minister of Health (1947) 2 All ER 395 at p. 399 Lord Greene, M.R. Said:
"Lis implies the conception of an issue joined between two parties. The decision of a lis...is the decision of that issue".
57. In the well-known case of Attorney-General of the Gambia v. Pierr Sarr N. Jie, 1961 AC 617, Lord Denning observed about the Attorney-General's standing thus:
"...The words 'person aggrieved' are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him; but they do include a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests. Has the Attorney-General a sufficient interest for this purpose? Their Lordships think that he has. The Attorney General in a colony represents the Crown as the guardian of the public interest. It is his duty to bring before the judge any misconduct of a barrister or solicitor which is of sufficient gravity to warrant disciplinary action."
(ii) In Jasbhai Motibhai Deasi v. Roshibi Kumar, Haji Bashir ahmed and Other reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671, the question posed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as follows:
"Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a "No Objection Certificate', granted under R.6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 47 from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave."
While considering the expressions "aggrieved person" and a "stranger" to the list, taking note of a catena of foreign and Indian decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
12. According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person" and in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a "stranger", the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. This takes us to the further question :
Who is an "aggrieved person"? And what are the qualifications requisite for such a status? The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. English Courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression "aggrieved person". However, some general tests have been, devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus standi or 'standing' to invoke certiorari jurisdiction.W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 48
13. We will first take up that line of cases in which an "aggrieved person" has been held to be one who has a more particular or peculiar interest of his own beyond that of the general public, in seeing that the law is properly administered. The leading case in this line is 1870 (5) QB 466 Queen v. Justices of Surrey decided as far back as 1870.
There, on the application by the highway board the Justice made certificates that certain portions of three roads were unnecessary. As a result, it was ordered that the roads should ceases to be repaired by the parishes.
30. Ex Parte Stott, 1916 (1) KB 7 is another illustration of a person who had no legal grievance, nor had he sufficient interest in the matter. A licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1901, granted to a theatre proprietor a licence for the exhibition of cinematograph films at his theatre. The license was subject to the condition that the licensee should not exhibit any film if he had notice that the licensing authority objected to it. A firm who had acquired the sole right of exhibition of a certain film in the district in which the theatre was situated entered into an agreement with the licensee. for the exhibition of the film at his theatre. The licensing authority having given notice to the licensee that it is objected to the exhibition of the film, the firm applied for a writ of certiorari to bring up the notice to be quashed on the ground that the condition attached to the licence was unreasonable and void, and that they were aggrieved by the notice as being destructive of their property. It was held that whether the condition was unreasonable or not, the applicants were not persons who were aggrieved by the notice and had no locus standi to maintain the application.
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 4934. The expression "ordinarily" indicates that this is not a cast iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule. The principles enunciated in the English cases noticed above, are not inconsistent with it.
36. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody of meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the past time of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.
37. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two concentric zones: a solid W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 50 central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved". In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outerzone may not be "persons aggrieved".
38. To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered as legal grievance, a person "against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 51 "person aggrieved" is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute, dealing with private rights of particular individuals?
39. Now let us apply these tests to the case in hand. The Act and the Rules with which we are concerned, are not designed to set norms of moral or professional conduct for the community at large or even a section thereof. They only regulate the exercise of private rights of an individual to carry on a particular business on his property. In this context, the expression "person aggrieved" must receive a strict construction.
48. It is true that in the ultimate analysis the jurisdiction under Art.226 is general, and certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other well established self devised rules of practice, such as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving of public time and money.
49. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a 'stranger' unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a 'stranger', W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 52 and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of respondents 1 and 2, which they have under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject to 'reasonable restrictions imposed by law'."
(iii) In Thammanna v. K.Veera Reddy and Others reported in (1980) 4 SCC 62, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Although the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally "a 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something." (As Per James L.J. in Re Sidebothem (1880) 14 Ch.D.458 referred to by this Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [1975] 2 S.C.C. 703 and J.N. Desai v. Roshan Kumar A.I.R.1976 S.C. 576"
(iv) In Babua Ram and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 689, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the expression "person aggrieved" and held hereunder:
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 53"In Collins English Dictionary, the word "aggrieved" has been defined to mean "to ensure unjustly especially by infringing a person's legal rights". In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition at page 28, aggrieved person is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights". In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person aggrieved means "person injured or damaged in a legal sense". In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been defined to mean "having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved person has been defined to mean:
"One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or divested. The word "aggrieved"
refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."
(iv) In Shobha Suresh Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property and Another [(2001) 5 SCC 755], the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of a decision in Sidebotham, Re, ex p Sidebotham (Ch D at p.465) held as follows:
"4. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel Mr. H.L. Tiku appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous because "any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority" is entitled to file an appeal under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA and appellant being wife of the detenue is an aggrieved person. He also submitted that the W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 54 appellant apart from being wife is also entitled to have charge for maintenance from the properties which are forfeited and, therefore, she is 'person aggrieved' by the order of the competent authority.
5. First we would reiterate that the words 'any aggrieved person' are found in several statues. However, the meaning of the expression "aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. In Sidebotham, Re, ex p Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458., it was observed by James, L.J.:
"But the words "person aggrieved" do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A "person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something".
(v) In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has been a breach of W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 55 statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (AIR 1952 SC
12); Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1954 SC 728);
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (AIR 1962 SC 1044); Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 2736); and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 784)
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide:
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 56Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1361).
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai (AIR 2008 SC 1289), a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.
12. In A. Subhash Babu v. State of A.P. (AIR 2011 SC 3031), this Court held:
"The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant."
13. This Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas corpus petition, has explained that the expression, 'next friend' means a person who is not a total stranger. Such a petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete stranger to the person who is in alleged illegal custody. (Vide: Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Ors. AIR (1951 SC
41); Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1579); Mrs. Neelima Priyadarshini v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 2021); Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC
280); Karamjeet Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 284); and W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 57 Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Ors. [JT (2012) 10 SC 393]
14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide:
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. (AIR 1980 SC
856); Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2010) 2 SCC 114];
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 402]; and Amar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. [(2011) 7 SCC 69])
15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114); Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 758]) W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 58
16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 33], this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:-
"There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the Petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper- technical grounds. ----In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi. (Emphasis added)
17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others."
23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 59 to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, in- articulation or poverty, are unable to approach the Court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the Court, then the Court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the Court, requires consideration, the Court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect."
22. The question which emerges for consideration is whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person to challenge a statutory order issued against two TV Channels. Basically, the petitioner has no case that the TV Channels against whom action was initiated, are unable to approach any authority or competent court of law to challenge orders. Nowhere in the writ petition, we could find any pleading made by the writ petitioner as to how he is aggrieved substantially due to the action taken by the respondent against two TV Channels. It is pertinent to note that the adverse proceedings, Exhibits-P1 and P2, issued against the TV Channels are in a properly constituted proceedings under law and if they are aggrieved by the orders impugned, they ought to have challenged the same before the court of law. There is also no case for the petitioner that the aggrieved parties have authorised him to act on their behalf. So much so, no grounds are W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 60 raised in the writ petition in order to substantiate that the aggrieved persons were, in any manner, incapacitated to ventilate their grievances. We are of the view that there is no manner of interest to the petitioner, to take up the cause of the third parties before this Court and the petitioner has also no case that he had suffered any civil consequences, consequent to Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders passed by the respondent. There are no materials before us to show that any legal right of the petitioner is violated and that he is aggrieved or prejudiced in any manner. The petitioner has no case that he has suffered any legal injury or has any personal or proprietary interest in the conduct of TV Channels. To say that one is aggrieved, there should be an intrinsic connection to the issue involved, and not a casual, remote or insignificant connection. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person.
23. On evaluation of factual circumstances and grounds raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the challenge made by him against the impugned orders cannot be sustained under law.
24. However, the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(i) of Rules, 1994 and clause 5.9 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of TV Channels from India, issued by the W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 61 Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting order dated 05.12.2011, which reads as follows:
"5.9. The Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting shall have the right to suspend the permission of the company for a specified period in public interest or in the interest of national security to prevent its misuse. The company shall immediately comply with any directives issued in this regard."
25. From Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders issued by the respondent, it is clear that action was initiated against two TV Channels for violation of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e), as discussed above. But, the petitioner has sought to declare Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(i) of Rules, 1994 as violative of Articles 19(1)
(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India and being ultra vires. Going through the provisions of Act, 1995 and Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of the Rules, 1994, we are of the view that they are only reasonable restrictions to eliminate any attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes and likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote anti-national attitudes. In tune with the legislative intent, provisions of the Statue, and the policy guidelines, rules have been framed to ensure that communal and religious harmony are maintained within the territory of India.
26. Unity in diversity is how the country has proved its existence to W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 62 the world. It is an undisputed fact that India has various castes, religions, cultures, languages etc., and people irrespective of the differences, prove to the world that they are united. Any violence on the basis of communal or religious disturbance can lead to irreparable injury and loss. Keeping in mind the above, prohibitions contained under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 brought into force, cannot be said to be violative of fundamental rights. The legislative intent is clear.
27. Taking into account the legal and factual circumstances, we are of the view that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Exhibits-P1 and P2 orders and the vires of Rules 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of Rules, 1994. Further, we are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner could challenge Rules 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1994, since they were not a subject matter of consideration in the action taken by the respondent against the TV Channels. Challenge cannot be sustained.
28. Thus, reading of the provisions of the Statue and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1994, make it clear that the Statute confers powers on the authorised officer in public interest to prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme or channel if, it is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 and advertisement code referred to in section 6 or if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 63 community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity. So also, Section 20 of the Act confers power to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme.
As per sub-section (2) of Section 20, where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India; or (ii) security of India; or (iii) friendly relations of India with any foreign State; or (iv) public order, decency or morality, it may, by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme. Decisions on public order make it clear that the expression has wide connotation, and thus the provisions are enacted. Contentions that the rules and the policy guidelines are ultra vires of the Act, are liable to be rejected, since the Statute confers power to frame rules.
29. As discussed above, rules have been framed with an intention to maintain communal and religious harmony, and to uphold the constitutional goals. It is also pertinent to note that the orders issued were withdrawn within twenty four hours, whereby no scope remains to have a cause of action for a third person to resolve any issue through a court of law.
30. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, we are of the prima facie view that petitioner has not made out any case to entertain a W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 64 public interest litigation. Challenge made to the validity of Rules 6(1)(a), 6(1)(c), 6(1)(e), and 6(1)(i) of the Rules, 1994 as well as clause 5.9 of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India, fails.
Writ petition is dismissed. The impugned Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, and the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India are consequently upheld. No costs.
SD/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
krj JUDGE
W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 65
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ASIANET NEWS TV CHANNEL.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO MEDIA ONE TV CHANNEL.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POLICY GUIDELINES FOR UPLINKING OF TELEVISION CHANNELS FROM INDIA DATED 05/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS RULES, 1994 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO CJ