Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

short films would be telecast on Doordarshan. The respondent submitted his film to Doordarshan for telecast but Doordarshan refused to telecast the same on the grounds that (i) the film was out dated (ii) it had lost its relevance (iii) it lacked moderation and restraint (iv) it was not fair and balanced (v) political parties have raised various issues concerning the tragedy and (vi) claims for compensation by victims were sub-judice.

The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to telecast his film on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the same. The Union of India contested the petition by stating that although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnigtly telecast of award winning documentaries, no decision was taken to telecast all national award winning documentaries; that the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award were not the same as applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of a film for telecast; and the respondent's film which was previewed by a duly constituted Screening Committee was not found to meet the requirements for telecast on Doordarshan. The High Court held that no restriction could be placed on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution save and except by law permitted by Article 19(2); that the respondent's right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution obligated Doordarshan to telecast the film since the guidelines or norms on which the refusal was based executive in character and not law within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Accordingly, it directed Doordarshan to telecast the film, "Beyond Genocide"

In the order appeal the facts reveal that Shri Tapan Bose, Managing Trustee of the respondent trust, had produced a documentary film on the Bhopal Gas Disaster title "Beyond Genocide". This film was awarded the Golden Lotus, being the best non-feature film of 1987. The respondent contended that at the time of the presentation of awards the Central Minister for Information & Broadcasting had made a declaration that the award winning short films will be telecast on Doordarshan. The respondent submitted for telecast his film to Doordarshan but Doordarshan refused to telecast the same on the ground : "the contents being updated do not have relevance now for the telecast". The respondent represented to the Minister for Information & broadcasting, but to no avail. He, therefore, filed the writ petition, being Civil Writ No. 212 of 1989, challenging the refusal on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the same. In the counter filed to the writ petition it was contended that although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnightly telecast of award winning documentaries. It was emphasied that the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award winning documentaries. It was emphasised that the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award were not the same as applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of a film for telecast. Emphasis was laid by Doordarshan on socially relevant films which were fair and balanced and the respondent's film which was previewed by a duly constituted Screening Committee was not found to meet that requirement for telecast on Doordarshan. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting had reconsidered the matter in the light of the respondent's representation but did not see any reason to depart from the view taken by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee had founded its decision on the accepted norms for display of the documentary films on Doordarshan and since the respondent's film did not satisfy the norms for the reason that it lacked moderation and restraint in judging things and expressing opinions, it was found not suitable for telecast. It also took into consideration the fact that while most of the claims for compensation for the victims of Bhopal Disaster were sub-judice and political parties were raising certain issue, it was inexpedient and unwise to telecast the film. It was also feared that it would only end in further vitiating the atmosphere and will serve no social purpose. The High Court came to the conclusion that the repondent's right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution obligated Doordarshan to telecast the film since the guidelines or norms on which the refusal was based were purely executive in character and not law within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It, therefore, came to the conclusion that no restriction could be placed on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution save and except by law permitted by Article 19(2) and not by executive or non- statutory guidelines on the basis of which Doordarshan had refused to telecast the film. It took the view that these norms were for internal guidance and cannot interfere with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. It, therefore, directed Doordarshan to telecast the film "Beyond Genocide" at a time and date convenient to it keeping in view the public interest and on such terms and conditions as it would like to impose in accordance with law. It is against this direction of the High Court that the second the second appeal is preferred.

That takes us to the appeal involving Doordarshan's refusal to telecast the documentary "Beyond Genocide" based on the Bhopal Gas Disaster. There is no dispute that this film own the Golden Lotus award as the best non-feature film of 1987. Yet, as the judgment of the High Court reveals, Doordarshan refused to telecast it on the ground that "the contents being outdated do not have relevance now for the telecast". It was emphasised that since the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award were different from those applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan when it comes to selecting a film for telecast, the mere fact that a film has won a national award is not sufficient for all national award winning films are not ipso facto fit for telecast on television. It was said that unless a film is socially relevant and fair and balanced it is not cleared for telecast. The film in question did not satisfy this broad norm since it was found lacking in moderation and restraint and hence it was not cleared for telecast. Lastly it was said that since claims for compensation of the victims of the tragedy were pending and political parties were raising various issues, it was though inexpedient to screen the film. It is, however, admitted in paragraph 2 of the Special Leave Petition: "The documentary is an appraisal of what exactly transpired in Bhopal on the date the gas leak occurred". Admittedly the said film was granted a 'U' certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification under section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') In the High Court Doordarshan had by way of an additional affidavit contended that before refusing to telecast the film, its selection committee had examined the film with a view to finding out if it conformed to the norms laid down for selection of a documentary film for telecast. These norms on which reliance was placed have been extracted in the judgment of the High Court and read as under: