Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sane Group Of Companies, Hyderabad vs Chandra Raja Kumari, President, Ap ... on 29 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD262, 1999(1)ALT600
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy, T. Ranga Rao
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.18877 of 1977. Similar questions arise in Writ Petition No.27507 of 1997 and as such, it is posted along with this writ appeal.
2. Several aspects dealt with by the learned single Judge are not so much necessary for adjudication of the case. Concisely speaking, the complaint of the Voluntary Organisations propounding the cause of the women is the objection raised to the Beauty Contest which was to be held in the City. Their complaint is that Beauty Contests are unconstitutional offending Articles 14, 21 and 51-A(e) of the Constitution of India and are also repugnant to the International Conventions, Covenants and Resolutions of the United Nations and Conferences on Women. Invocation of all the above provisions, be it legal Conventions or Covenants, are on the premise that the Beauty Contests are opposed to decency, public morality and dignity of women in general and women of Indian Society in particular, and repugnant to Indian Culture, traditions and social values and they are intended to exploit women for commercialisation by capitalists and the business world or enriching themselves at the cost of indecent representation of women in all forms and by all methods as they are transformed into marketable commodity etc. We need not detail all the facts stated in the writ petition and dealt with by the learned single Judge, for the reason that he matter has to be judged in the light of the legal provisions. We cannot give a declaration with regard to Beauty Contests either as good or bad. If there is a law prohibiting the Beauty Contests and if the same is violated, certainly this Court will invoke its jurisdiction. But, ever according to the learned single Judge, there is no specific legislation prohibiting Beauty Contest in any form. It is apt to extract what the learned single Judge said on that aspect:
"Strictly speaking, there is no specific legislation prohibiting beauty contests in any form. But in the considered opinion of this Court, there are few legislations or laws through which misuse of beauty contests can be prevented, checked, controlled and prohibited in addition to punishing the guilty of such misuse or abuse. They are :
(1) Indian Penal Code (Central Law) (2) The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Central Act). (3) A.P. Objectionable Performances (Prohibition) Act, 1956 (Act No.8 of 1956); (4) Rules relating to Place of Public Entertainment in the City of Hyderabad, 1351 Fasli framed under Section 21 of Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 F."
With respect to the learned Judge, we do not concur that the beauty contests can be roped into any of the above legal provisions to prevent them. The beauty contests are age-old and are held World-wide like Miss World, Miss Universe and similar contests global-wise and in each country, there are beauty contests as Miss India, Miss America etc. and like-wise there are beauty contests in the States like Miss Andhra etc. There being no specific legislation prohibiting the beauty contests, the legal provisions mentioned above by the learned single Judge cannot be stretched and strained purposefully either to prohibit the said beauty contests or to place unreasonable restrictions. The question has to be considered in the context of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. By holding beauty contests, neither public order, decency or morality suffers and the legal provisions mentioned supra do not contain any prohibition to hold beauty contests and if there is violation of the public order, decency or morality and consequently the above legal provisions in individual cases (beauty contests), certainly, action can be taken by the police. That apart, for the purpose of improving law and order situation, permission has to be taken by the organisers of the beauty contests from the police and the police on collection of requisite charges from the organisers permit the beauty contests by providing sufficient security. In fact, the matter relating to beauty contests is no more res Integra in view of the latest Supreme Court judgment relating to Miss Universe Contest in Bangalore in Amitabh Corporation Limited v. Mahila Jagran Manch and others, , in which the Supreme Court has categorically held as follows:
"..........We have thought it proper to make this order as we are distressed that the Division Bench of the High Court should have entertained the petition. It was necessary to realise that merely because a section of the people were agitating against the holding of the Pageant, a world event, and had resorted to violence, demonstraiton etc., an international event could not be grounded or put under severe restrictions. The High Court should have realised that the rights of the organisers and other members of the society had to be protected if a law and order situation was created on account of such agitation, demonstration etc. If for dealing with the threat to law and order, the State Government was required to use its Police Force or Security Forces, it was not proper on the part of the High Court to interfere and give directions in regard to the type of force to be used because it is very difficult in such situations to visualize what shape the demonstration and agitation may take and the type of law and order situation which may have to be dealt with. To restrain the State from using the BSF or the Armed Forces, if necessary, would in certain situations create a very serious problems as the State would not be able to deal with it in case it turns ugly. This is not an area where the Court should exercise its jurisdiction and issue directions because it is difficult to anticipate how the situation will develop in course of time. This is a function which must be left to the executive as the judiciary is not equipped to deal with it.
There can be two views on the question whether such a show is desirable or not. Some may consider it to be indecent, other may not. Unless any law is violated, the Court ought not to interfere in such matters. These are not matters which can be judicially assessed and the pressure which the agitators bring to bear ought not to sway the Court into exercising jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of thin case, we are of the opinion thai the Court would have been well advised not to interfere in the matter and leave it to the authorities to sort it out.
Although now the matter has become academic, in the sense that the event is over, we have thought it necessary to say these few words so that in future the Court may not be swayed into exercising jurisdiction in such cases. This Appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. Rupees five lakhs ordered to be deposited by the interim order of the Division Bench shall be refunded to the appellants."
3. As already stated above, the learned single Judge himself held that there is no specific legislation prohibiting the beauty contest and in the context of what is stated by the Supreme Court that unless any law is violated, the Court ought not to interfere in such matters. There is no warrant for the learned single Judge to impose any conditions. As such, all such conditions imposed while disposing ot the writ petition are vacated.
4. In view of what is stated supra, the writ appeal is allowed. No orders are necessary in Writ Petition No.27507 of 1997 for the reason that the prayer is to direct the respondent to grant permission to hold the Miss Tourism International 1997 Show at Treasure Island on 1-1-1997 and as the said period had already expired long back. No costs.