Karnataka High Court
Mahila Jagran Manch vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 13 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1997KAR2110
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran
ORDER R.V. Raveendran, J.
1. A letter addressed by Manila Jagran, a Society established with the intention of upholding the cause of women in various spheres of life, has been ordered to be registered as a Writ Petition. The prayers in this public interest litigation are : (a) a direction to the Second Respondent ('ABCL' for short) not to hold or host "MISS WORLD 1996" Contest anywhere in India including Bangalore; (b) a direction to the First Respondent not to permit any of its Departments to provide any facilities or co-operation for the holding of such beauty pageant; a direction to the First Respondent to recover charges for use of the Press Conference Hall at Vidhana Soudha, from Second Respondent; and a direction to First and Second Respondents to tender an apology for announcing the event from Vidhana Soudha; (c) a direction to the Third Respondent not to allow the Second Respondent to host the Miss World Contest, in the Chinnaswamy Stadium; (d) a Writ of prohibition by issue of a blanket ban on conducting Miss World Contest and stop spreading of AIDS by men and women of other countries, who will visit India in connection with such an event; and (e) a direction that no Visas should be issued to any person who wants to visit India in connection with the Miss World Contest.
2, The Petitioner contends that holding of the Miss World Contest is opposed to Bharatiya Samskriti and Culture. Petitioner apprehended that holding of such a pageant in Bangalore will bring criminal gangs to Bangalore, thereby increasing flesh trade and trade in narcotics in Bangalore. Petitioner also feels that it will also lead to spreading of AIDS as many a visitor from foreign countries visiting this country in connection with the pageant may be carriers of the disease. Petitioner also believes that if such pageant is permitted to be held, it will bring in a wave of crime against women. The Petitioner is also concerned that the event may further strain the already thinly spread infrastructural facilities relating to water, electricity and other essential services in Bangalore and lead to shortages, power failures, break in security arrangements, increase in thefts, etc. It is apprehended that Television coverage of the event will poison the minds of the Indian youth. It is lastly contended that the said Contest will violate Section 292 of the I.P.C.
3. ABCL as filed its statement. It contends that lack of information and a misconception of the ambit and scope of Miss World Beauty Contest on the part of the Petitioner, has led to the petition. It is stated that Miss World Contest originated in 1951 in the United Kingdom as a promotional event to focus attention on the festival of Britain.Though initially it only related to beauty, in or about 1961, a charity element was introduced and considerable part of the monies collected are donated to charity, for upliftment of children, all over the world. Mr. Eric Morley and his wife/Julia Morley, who conceived and created the event, took, over the organisation relating to the Pageant in or about 1969 and extended the fund raising to the rest of the world and now, the contest relates to 'Beauty with a purpose'. The object of the Contest is not just to select the most beautiful girl, but to select the most talented and most beautiful girl and to raise funds for children's charities. The contest is not a simple beauty competition. It ensures that the participants display discipline in their conduct both in public and private, it is pointed out that the persons who participate in the Contest include Doctors, Lawyers and other professionals. It is stated that there is neither obscenity nor vulgarity in the 'Contest. It is contended that the entire Pageant is conducted in an artistic, decent, tasteful manner; and that it is a well organised and regulated event. It is, therefore, contended that the apprehension voiced by the Petitioner in the petition is baseless and that it is impermissible for any group of self-appointed moralists to interfere with the staging of an event of great magnitude which is a tribute to the beauty and intelligence of women.
3.1. The Pageant will have contestants from 80 to 90 countries participating in it. There will be several preliminary rounds which include Miss Personality, Miss Photogenic, Miss celebrity and several other rounds. Some of these rounds will be held in several other cities in India. Only a couple of pre-final events and the final event of selecting Miss World is proposed to be held in Bangalore. The behaviour, conduct and movements of the participants are strictly regulated; and care and caution is taken in regard to holding of the Pageant and no person who has committed any illegal and immoral act is permitted to participate in the said Pageant. Only single, unmarried females aged between 17 and 25 years and who never had a child, are permitted to participate. The participants are required to conduct themselves properly and not to commit any act calculated to bring discredit on herself or the Miss World contest; not to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke during the period of participation. The minimum dress will be single piece swim suit and participants will not be permitted to wear bikinis, and there will be no nudity. Each contestant will be informed of the Rules in the entrance form itself and any person who does not comply with the Rules will not be permitted to participate and sent back. A qualified Chaperon/ Interpreter is allocated to each five participants. It is stated that the only event which is open to public viewing is the finals of Miss World 1996.
3.2. The admission to the final event will be only by invitation or purchase of tickets. There will be no nudity, semi-nudity or vulgar of obscene display as apprehended by the Petitioner. All the participants will be elegantly dressed in evening gowns or similar dresses in the final event. The Pageant will be telecast and watched in 112 countries with a viewership running to two billion or more. It is stated that in its history of more than four decades, the event has never been linked to any vulgarity, obscenity or scandal and participants have always been treated as cultural Ambassadors participating in an artistic event, bringing credit to the participants and their countries. The winners have been treated as heroines in their respective countries who have achieved something for the country and are received with affection and adulation. The winners have been received by Heads of State, Statesmen, distinguished personalities in the spheres of politics, art and culture as also by cultural and public Organisations. The contestants have never been linked to any flesh trade or narcotics trade or any other immoral activities at any time.
3.3. It is also contended that the petition is not maintainable and petitioner has no locus standi to file such a public interest litigation.
4. The First Respondent has contended that the Miss Worlds Pageant will be merely treated as one of the several international events taking place in Bangalore; that it will not cause any hardship to the citizens of Bangalore nor put any strain on the city's infrastructural facilities; that Miss World Pageant is neither sponsored by the State Government, nor has the State Government incurred or undertaken any financial liability; that no permission has been sought nor contemplated from the State Government for holding the Pageant; that the event is like any other cultural event in regard to which, the sponsors will have to take necessary permissions/licence from the concerned statutory or local authorities; that the State Government has no special interest or financial-commitment in regard to the event, except its anxiety to benefit from such an event which will improve the tourism prospects of the State. It is contended that holding of the event in Bangalore will be in the interest of the State and to its benefit.
5. The Third Respondent has contended that the Second Respondent will be treated like anyone else who wants to hire the Stadium for an important cultural event and the pitch and the grounds will be suitably and adequately protected from any damage.
6. In this factual background, the questions that arises for consideration are whether the petition is maintainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
7. ABCL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Third Respondent is also not 'State'. The First Respondent has no part to play in the holding of the Pageant which is purely cultural/commercial venture managed and hosted by ABCL, beneficial to the State and several Charitable Institutions. The subject matter of the Petition does not relate to discharge or performance of any public duty by any of the Respondents. In the circumstances, no writ can be issued against Second or Third Respondents; The only question that remains for consideration is whether Petitioners have made out any case for issuing a direction to the State Government either to ban/prohibit holding of the Miss World 1996 Pageant, or not to provide any facilities for such an event.
8. In S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA the Supreme Court observed thus, while dealing with the principles of Locus Standi in relation to public interest litigation:
"It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226...."
.... But there may be cases where the State or a public authority may act in violation of a constitutional or statutory obligation or fail to carry out such obligation, resulting in injury to public interest or what may conveniently be termed as public injury as distinguished from private injury,....
.... If no one can maintain an action for redress of such public wrong or public injury, it would be disastrous for the rule of law, for it would be open to the State or a public authority to act with impugnity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of a public duty owed by it. The Courts cannot countenance such a situation where the observance of the law is left to the sweet will of the authority bound by it, without any redress if the law is contravened. The view has therefore been taken by the Courts in many decisions that whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy-body or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. There can be no doubt that the risk of legal action against the State or a public authority by any citizen will induce the State or such public authority to act with greater responsibility and care thereby improving the administration of justice....
.... For example, the discharge of effluent in a lake or river may harm all who want to enjoy its clean water; emission of noxious gas may cause injury to large numbers of people who inhale it along with the air; defective or unhealthy packaging may cause damage to all consumers of goods and so also illegal raising of railway or bus fares may affect the entire public which wants to use the railway or bus as a means of transport. In cases of this kind, it would not be possible to say that any specific legal injury is caused to an individual or to a determinate class or group of individuals. What results in such cases is public injury and it is one of the characteristics of public injury that the act or acts complained of cannot necessarily be shown to affect the rights of determinate or identifiable class or group of persons; public injury is an injury to an indeterminate class of persons. In these cases the duty which is breached giving rise to the injury is owed by the State or a public authority not to any specific or determinate class or group of persons, but to the general public. In other words, the duty is one which is not corelative, to any individual rights. Now if breach of such public duty were allowed to go unredressed because there is no one who has received a specific legal injury or who was entitled to participate in the proceedings pertaining to the decision relating to such public duty, the failure to perform such public duty, would go unchecked and it would promote disrespect for the rule of law. It would also open the door for corruption and inefficiency because there would be no check on exercise of public power except what may be provided by the political machinery, which at best would be able to exercise only a limited control and at worst, might become a participant in misuse or abuse of power. It would also make the new social collective rights and interests created for the benefit of the deprived sections of the community meaningless and ineffectual".
8.1. In THE JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDARY , the Supreme Court observed that the dominant object of public interest litigation is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest, by permitting any persons, having no personal-gain or private motivation or other oblique consideration, but acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion. It was observed:
"In defining the rule of locus standi no 'rigid litmus test' can be applied since the broad contours of PIL are still developing a pace seemingly with divergent views on several aspects of the concept of this newly developed law and discovered jurisdiction leading to a rapid transformation of judicial activism with a far-reaching change both in the nature and form of the judicial process."
8.2. In BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIA , where the State had failed to exercise proper control in regard to inhuman working conditions in stone quarries, inspite of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in a previous case, the Supreme Court called upon the State Government to act as a welfare State and ensure that workers employed in such quarries are continued to work with improved conditions of service and facilities and release from bondage, whoever who wants to go back to their native places.
8.3. Thus where there is a perceived public injury i.e., an injury to indeterminate class of persons, and the State fails to perform its duty to redress such public injury, Courts can always step in and direct the State to discharge its duties and functions. In this petition, the petitioner alleges that there will be a public injury by holding of the Miss World Contest and the State should discharge its duty by preventing it. Thus such a public interest litigation is maintainable and the petitioner has the locus standi to file such petition. But the question is whether there will in fact be any public injury by holding of the Pageant and whether a direction should be issued by this Court to the State Government to take preventive steps.
9. The reasons given by the Petitioner to contend that there is public injury are that the holding of the Pageant will be opposed to Bharathiya Samskriti; that it will bring in a wave of crime against women; it will increase flesh trade and sexual abuso; it will increase use of narcotics; it will increase the spreading of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases; and it will strain the infrastructural facilities available in Bangalore. The event is being held annually for several decades. The manner in which it is held, as described in paras 3, 3.1 and 3.2 above shows that there is absolutely no basis for the apprehensions voiced by the Petitioner. About 500 persons are expected to visit Bangalore in connection with the holding of the Pageant which include the organisers, technicians, participants, chaperons, interpreters and Media persons. Considerable number of Tourists-visitors are also expected. But it is preposterous to even think that tourists who will come to Bangalore to see the finals, are lacking in character, morals or health, as assumed by the petitioner. Petitioners have no right to paint the rest of mankind as persons who are depraved or diseased, by taking a frog-in-the-well attitude. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate even in the remotest manner the evil consequences apprehended by it.
10. This leaves us with the question whether holding of the Pageant would violate Section 292 of I.PC. That section provides that any representation, figure or other object shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prusient interest or if its effect, such as to deprave or corrupt who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to see the matter contained.
10.1. The following test of obscenity, was laid down by -COCOKBURN C.J. IN REX v. HICKLIN (1868) LR 3 QB.360, "Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.." In RANJIT D. UDESHI v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA , the Supreme Court held that the test of obscenity to adopt in India is, treating sex in a manner appealing to the carnal side of human nature or having that tendency. The Supreme Court also observed that a balance must be maintained between freedom of speech and expression on the one hand and public decency and morality on the other, and when the latter is substantially transgressed, the former must give way. But when something is presented in an artistic and decent manner and there is nothing in such represeniation to offend the ordinary decent person, it is impossibly to say that it is obscene. In BOBBY ART INTERNATIONAL v. OMPAL SINGH HOON , the Supreme Court while dealing with censoring films, observed "We do not censor to protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the oversensitive".
10.2. In K.A, ABBAS v. UNION OF INDIA , the Supreme Court observed:
"Out standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read..."
10.3. In RAJ KAPOOR v. STATE , the Supreme Court observed:
"Art, morals and law's manacles on aesthetics are a sensitive subject where jurisprudence meets other social sciences and never goes alone to' bark and bite because State made strait-jacket is an inhibitive prescription for a free country unless enlightened society actively participates in the administration of Justice to aesthetics."
"The world's greatest paintings, sculptures, songs and dances, India's lustrous heritage, the Konaraks and Khajurahos, lofty epics, luscious in patches may be asphyxiated by law, if prudes and prigs and State moralists prescribed paradigms and prescribed heterodoxies."
10.4. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, in a recent speech dealing with obscenity, gave the following advice while addressing a Women's Forum: "Coming as you do, from the land where there is worship of the Phallus, worship of nude women by Tantriks, worship by nude service, where erotic sculpture is part of traditional temple architecture, where Vatsayana wrote on art of love in Kamasutra, necessary sense and sensibility regarding culture and decency, to discern between art and beauty on the one hand and obscenity on the other, should always be maintained".
11. Oversensitiveness should not be the guiding factor, in determining what is obscene. No single group can expect everyone else to follow its culture, customs traditions; nor has any activist group, a moral, right to insist that others should follow its-views and accept its values. Our country is of diverse cultures, customs and dress habits. There are groups which consider disclosure of any part of a Woman's body in public is taboo. There are tribals who even now practice nudity and semi-nudity. Leaving midriff and waist uncovered by women, which may be considered normal in India may be frowned upon or may cause eyebrows to be raised, in several parts of the world. Beauty, ugliness, obscenity are all in the eye of the beholder. The dress worn by a participant in a swimming competition or a gymnastic event, may be shorter and skimpier than the dress worn by a participant in a Miss World Contest. But, no one considers the dress worn, or the performance given, by a swimmer or a gymnast, as obscene. On the other hand, there is a common perception that many of the song-and-dance sequences with suggestive gyrations and movements, forming a regular feature of most of Indian Cinema and which are now continuously telecasted in various channels of Television, are vulgar and obscene, even though the dancers may be fully clothed. One of the indicative factors of obscenity has been whether a normal person with average morals, will feel embarrassed or disgusted by seeing it.
12. Tested on the touch stone, of the aforesaid principles and guidelines, I have no hesitation to hold that a beauty pageant, in the form of Miss World Contest within the parameters described and prescribed by the sponsors and organisers, will not be offensive to the principles of morality and decency; nor could it be deemed as obscene in the eye of law. This shall not be treated as a pre-judgment of what is to take place, but a perception of the event, from the description of the annual event.
13. No group of individuals can, while fighting for their rights and freedom, howsoever noble or just their cause may be, trample the rights and freedom of others. To put it differently, while it may be perfectly legal for a group of activists, to agitate for better or more rights and freedom for any section of citizens, such agitation cannot be extended to prevent another section of citizens or group of individuals from exercising their rights and freedom in a particular manner. Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to participate in a programme of dance, drama or Pageant or other entertainment or in any cultural event, is a facet of the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution, subject only to such restrictions as may be placed by the State under Article 19(2) in the interest of public order, decency or morality.
14.Hence, I find no reason to issue any direction to the State Government in this matter. The petition is therefore rejected.