Madras High Court
G.Alex Benziger vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M.Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21-01-2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH WRIT PETITION No.17629 of 2009 1.G.Alex Benziger 2.Rev. Fr. Pancras M.Raja 3.A.Arokiadoss 4.Dr.S.Leonard Vasanth .. Petitioners vs 1.Union of India Rep. By its Secretary to Government Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Department R.No.655, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001 2.Prashar Bharati Nigam Ltd., Rep. By the Director General Doordarshan Doordarshan Bhavan Copernicus Marg New Delhi 110 001 3.Central Board of Film Certification (Censor Board) Walkeshwar Road Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006 4.Vijay T.V. Star Television Ltd., Star House, Off. Dr.E.Moses Road Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011 5.Sun T.V.Net Work (Pvt.) Ltd., Corporate Office 4, Norton Road Mandaveli, Chennai 600 028 6.FTV India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Nirlon House Opp. To Sasmire, Dr.A.B.Road Worli, Mumbai 400 030 7.AXN T.V., Sony Entertainment Television Interface Building No.7, Off. Malad Link Road Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. 8.Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd., Anna Arivalayam 367/369 Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 9.SS Music 126 & 127, 3rd Floor Triplicane High Road Triplicane, Chennai 600 005. 10.Raj T.V. Raj Television Network Ltd., 32, Poes Road 2nd Street Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to regulate and order prohibiting the transmission or retransmission of the cable television networks of the respondents which are telecasting indecent, vulgar, obscene programmes of inducing, glorifying violence, crimes, obscenity in particular on women and children, explicit images of sexual perversions or acts of sexual violence like rape or molestation, or show pornography, or use of sexually suggestive body language or have half naked girls dancing almost performing pornography or indiscriminate drinking and smoking. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Shanmugakani For Respondents : Mr.M.Devendran Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government for RR1 to 3 ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE) This petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation seeks a direction against the Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Department, to regulate and prohibit the transmission or retransmission of cable television networks of various channels, which are alleged to be telecasting indecent, vulgar and obscene programmes thereby inducing, glorifying violence, crimes and obscenity in particular on women and children.
2.The counter affidavits have been filed jointly by the first two respondents stating that there is no pre-censorship of programmes telecast by private television channels, though they are required to adhere to the provisions of programmes/advertising codes prescribed under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Rules framed thereunder. An Inter-Ministerial Committee has been set up under Section 20 of the said Act to look into violation of these codes, which either suo motu or on receipt of complaints, examines cases of violations. There are cases where action has been taken against TV Channels as per Rules. The Code is also stated to be under consideration for revision.
3.It has been averred that a similar issue has been raised in various petitions filed before the Delhi High Court and in it's order dated 10.9.2008, it has been observed that the matter is of complex nature with several competing interests and the exercise is best left open to the Government itself.
4.It has also been averred that the Government has issued guidelines qua certification of films for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Thus, there is an enforcement machinery not only with respect to films, but also with respect to TV Channels and an Electronic Media Monitoring Center (EMMC) has been set up for purposes of monitoring the contents on television. The specific question referred to in the petition qua telecast of assault on Madras Law College on 12.11.2008, did not form part of any complaint made to any concerned authority.
5.The first respondent is stated to have been examining the issue of legislation to regulate the operation of broadcasting services; but, the Bills introduced have lapsed and the same is stated even in the writ petition.
6.In our view, certainly a mandamus cannot lie to legislate.
7.In our view, there is no doubt that the contents of TV Channels at times, raise the issue of it's undesirability. However, this is the information age and it is not possible to stop technology development. There is, thus, an explosion of information and the possible solution lies only in monitoring (as the Government is stated to be doing) or by way of switching off the channel, when it appears to be offensive. As to what is offensive and obscene is again a very subjective aspect and thus, whether it is elders or young children, they have to be advised to exercise discretion according to their thoughts and taste. Once again, all these are matters pertaining to social issues and whether to have a legislation or not or what form of regulations is required? is best left open to the Government and the elected Members of Parliament.
8.It is not possible for us to issue any specific directions in view of the aforesaid and thus, we close the writ petition. No costs.
(S.K.K.,C.J.) (M.M.S.,J.) 21-01-2015 Index: yes/no nsv To:
1.The Secretary to Government Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Department R.No.655, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 110 001
2.The Director General Prashar Bharati Nigam Ltd., Doordarshan Doordarshan Bhavan Copernicus Marg New Delhi 110 001
3.The Authorised Signatory Central Board of Film Certification (Censor Board) Walkeshwar Road Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
nsv W.P.No.17629 of 2009 Dt: 21-01-2015