Delhi District Court
Astro Science Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ADJ-04, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI.
MCA No. 07/14
1. Astro Science Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Through its constituted Attorney
Sh. Rajesh Sharma
C/o 40-41 A, Power Apartments,
Near Power House, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110034
2. Pt. G.D. Vashisht @ Gagandeep Sharma
S/o Late Mohan Lal Sharma
C/o 40-41 A, Power Apartments,
Near Power House, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110034 .... Appellants
Vs.
1. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
Through its Director - Neeti Sarkar
2. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. The Advertising Standards Council of India
219, Bombay Market,
78 Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400034
Through its Chief Operations Officer
4. Department of Food & Drug Administration
O/O the Joint Commissioner (Konkon Division)
4th Floor, ESIS Hospital, Road No. 33,
Wagle Estate, Thane (West) -400604
Through its Joint Commissioner .....Respondents
Date of institution : 22.09.2014 Date on which reserved for judgment : 31.03.2015 Date of decision : 31.03.2015 Appeal under Section XLIII rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 1/6 Judgment :
Vide this judgement, I shall dispose of this miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 passed by Ld. Trial Court. Brief facts of the appeal are as under :
1. Appellant No. 1 is a company and appellant no. 2 is its director and also a trained Astrologer of one of the Vedic branches of Astrology 'Lal Kitab'. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2, (ASCI) is a voluntarily organization self regulating advertising content for the advertising industry and is dealing with the complaints received from consumer and industry against advertisements which considered in violation of code of conduct, and deals alongwith Consumer Complaints Council. As such, respondent No. 2 has been checking the misconceived and unfair advertisement aired by various TV channels. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 allegedly received a letter / complaint and consequently issued a letter dated 30.9.2013 thereby seeking the comments of the appellants on the ground that it had received a complaint from the consumer that the programme 'Yes I can change' on the basis of 'Lal Kitab' of astrology was misleading, and on the basis of said complaint the respondent no. 3 sent a letter to news channel to stop the advertisement of the appellants. It is further stated that the appellants filed a suit before Ld. Trial Court alongwith application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC, but the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.09.2014 has dismissed the said application with some observations that the advertisement of the appellants promotes superstitious. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for appellants that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable as the advisory issued by the defendant No. 1 & 2 dated 21.08.2014 for stopping broadcast of plaintiff's programme was issued not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also a violation of right of livelihood as guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 2/6 further argued that the restrictions imposed by the respondents herein against advertisement of the programme was unreasonable restrictions. It is further argued that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the letter dated 21.08.2014 was not merely advisory in nature but was also a direction to the news channel to stop the broadcasting of the plaintiff's advertisement. It is further stated that Ld. Trial Court has expressed its opinion on the merit of the case by holding that astrology and plaintiff's activities promotes superstitious and advertisement was rightly stopped on the basis of advisory and this observation will have adverse effect on merit. It is further argued that Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the provisions of The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Rules 1994. It is further argued that the appellants have a prima facie case on merit and would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted as balance of convenience lies in their favour, as the letter issued by the respondents is violating the fundamental rights of the appellants.
2. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for respondents have strongly opposed this appeal on the ground that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is not bearing any illegality or infirmity and Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is further argued that the status of respondent No. 3 is statutory and it functions through consumer complaint council and both are bound to protect the interest of common viewers. It is further argued that the Cable Television Networks Regulations, 1995 and Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 have clearly provided that those programmes which are misleading and are in violation of programme code are liable to be restrained, and Respondent No. 1 & 2 have framed adequate guidelines to this effect. It is further argued that The Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995 has provided an advertisement code in view of Section 6 of the Act and the Cable Television Networks (Rules) Act, 1994 has also described what MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 3/6 is the violation of code of conduct and programme under which category can be restrained by the TV Channels under the directions / advisory of respondent no. 3 and consumer complaint Commission. It is further argued that the appellants have no prima facie case on merit and are not going to suffer any irreparable loss as no balance of convenience lies in their favour and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard the arguments and gone through the entire record.
The main grievance of appellant is that the Ld. Trial Court has observed on merit, "though astrology and palmistry are recognized, yet any such claim that a particular product will relieve the sorrows and misery of everyone, only promotes superstition", and it will effect the merit of the case of the appellants. This observation is a general observation of the court made at the time of disposal of interim application and it cannot be considered on the merit of the case as alleged by counsel for appellants. Further, the main cause of action of the appellants is arising out of the letter dated 30.09.2013 issued by respondent No. 3 thereby seeking the comments regarding complaint against TVC of Lal Kitab Amrit. In the absence of receipt of any comments, the advisory / letter 21.08.2014 was issued to the TV Channel to observe the code of conduct and TV Channel stopped the advertisement.
In fact, the document itself suggest that it was not a mandatory direction but was an advisory. The combined reading of Section 6 & 7 of Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act, 1995 r/w Rules 6 (j) and 7 (5) & (9) of Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 made it clear that the respondents are well competent to check the programmes and advertisements which encourages superstitious or blind belief. Rule 7 (a) of Cable Network Rules, 1994 authorized the respondent No. 3 to issue such directions in case of violation of the advertisement code. As such, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 has no authority to issue any MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 4/6 such advisory. A similar proposition was dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 2840/2014 titled M/s. Him Rishi Sansthan V. The Advertising Standards Council of India & Anr. and held that any recommendation by ASCI addressed to the boardcaster is really in the nature of a recommendation, it is for the broadcaster to take a decision as to whether or not the advertisement in issues violates the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. It is also obvious that in case the broadcaster takes a decision to continue with the advertisement in issue, it would lend itself open to prosecution. Section 16 of Act provides for punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court thereby relying upon Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 7 of Cable TV Networks Rules, 1994 has held that the Act and Rules clearly imposes an obligation on Union of India to ensure the Compliance of Act and Rules. After the observations of all facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the it is open to the broadcaster to take a decision whether or not to lend its services on the basis of recommendations by ASCI and petition was disposed off. In a similar case titled M/s. Quick Telemall Marketing Pvt. Ld. V. The Advertising Standards Council of India, CS (OS) 1877/2013, a different view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi subsequently, but the subsequent judgment pronounced in M/s. Him Rishi Sansthan V. The Advertising Standards Council of India & Anr. has to be followed. In view of provisions of The Cable TV Network regulations, 1995 and Rules 1994, made it clear that an advisory issued by respondent no. 3 was merely an advisory and it is to the news channel to decide the broadcast of the advertisement or not. As such the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is not bearing any illegality or infirmity, as the respondents are only performing their duties and it is the TV Channel who has stopped the telecast of the plaintiff to avoid the penal consequences provided under the Network Rules and Regulations. As such, this miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable, hence dismissed.
MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 5/6 However, the observation made hereinabove shall not amount to the expression of opinion on the merit of the case. Copy of judgement be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dated:- 31.03.2015 (Devender Kumar)
Announced in the open Court. ADJ-04, New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
MCA No. 7/14 Astro Science Technologies & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. 6/6