Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms. Ranjana Shahi And Others vs Union Of India And Others. on 5 December, 2008
Bench: T.S.Thakur, Jasbir Singh
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
***
CWP No. 20508 of 2008 Date of decision: December 05, 2008 *** Ms. Ranjana Shahi and others Versus Union of India and others.
***
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
***
Present: Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)
This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from using the words "Hindu Terrorists", "Hindu Terror" and "Saffron Terror" in their telecasts, which expressions are according to the petitioners illegal, unpatriotic and against the cultural ethos of this country, derogatory, abusive and depict the petitioners and the Hindu Society in bad colour. A mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 namely, Press Council of India and the Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh to ensure that the words aforementioned are not used in print media, audio-visual media branding the whole of Hindu Society as Terrorists, is also prayed for. The petitioners further seek a direction against respondent No.3 to ensure that use of the words earlier mentioned and expressions like "Radicals In Uniform", "Army Communalized" and "Indian Army and Hindu Terror" in the press, print media, audio-visual media and the Electronic Media, is prohibited.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the record.
There are in our opinion two distinct facet of the petitioners case; one relating to the use of expressions, which according to the petitioners are offensive, abusive and derogatory in nature and the other -2- CWP No. 20508 of 2008 relating to the alleged inaction of the authorities to take action against those making use of such expressions. In so far as the first limb of the petitioners case is concerned, namely, use of words "Hindu Terrorists", "Hindu Terror" and "Saffron Terror" etc. in the public telecasts, being illegal, unpatriotic and against the cultural ethos of the country is concerned, we do not think that the present proceedings are appropriate for examining the said aspect or issuing any direction to the media or the authorities concerned in exercise of our public interest jurisdiction. The use of such expressions may as alleged by the petitioners be found to be un-acceptable to a section of the society just as the petitioners find them to be un-acceptable, but whether or not the media is justified in using these expressions and whether or not the use of those expressions is punishable under the Indian Penal Code and hence liable to be forbidden is a matter which ought to be left to an ordinary civil and criminal court competent to determine the same in appropriate proceedings. Beyond that we do not propose to say anything for the present.
Coming then to the second aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners grievance against the alleged inaction of the authorities under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Press Council Act, 1978 is pre-mature. One could understand if the petitioners had approached the authorized officer with a complaint, seeking initiation of action or other redress, and the concerned officer had overlooked or neglected the discharge of duties cast upon him. The writ petition is, however, silent about any such representation or complaint having been made either before the Deputy Commissioner or before the Press Council of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that although a complaint has been made to the Deputy Commissioner, no action has been taken by him on the same. A copy of the complaint allegedly filed by the petitioners has not however been enclosed with the -3- CWP No. 20508 of 2008 writ petition nor has the date or other details about the said complaint been furnished. Even otherwise, if a complaint had indeed been filed, as alleged by the petitioners, the proper course for the petitioners would have been to approach the Deputy Commissioner for an early disposal of the same. Failure of the officer in that eventuality may have given the latter the cause of action to approach the writ court. Simply making an assertion unsupported by a copy of the complaint, would not in our opinion help the petitioners. Similarly there is nothing on the record before us to show that the petitioners have made any complaint to the Press Council of India under the Press Council Act, 1978. The argument that since the Press Council has failed to take action, this Court ought to issue a mandamus, has not appealed to us. If the petitioners want any action to be taken against the Print of Electronic Media, they can file a representation / complaint before the Press Council in which event the Press Council is expected to look into the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Suffice it to say that the alternative case set up by the petitioners regarding failure of the authorities to take action under the law by which they are governed also does not call for our interference.
In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed but In the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Dismissal of this petition shall not, however, prevent the petitioner from seeking such other remedy as may be available to them in law in appropriate proceedings.
T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 05, 2008 Malik