Dismissed

Pratiba Naitthani v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2007WP/1232/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Writ petitions challenging the telecast of obscene films and serials. It upheld the previous order regarding films for Cable Operators while directing the Censor Board to evolve a certification mechanism for TV serials pending guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Orders regarding films for cable operators continued; interim applications disposed of; second petition rendered infructuous.

Pratiba Naitthani Vs Union of India and Anr. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2004

¶4

 Pratiba Naitthani. .. .. Petitioner
 v/s.
 Union of India & anr. .. .. Respondents
 Mr.M.M. Vashi for petitioner.

¶5

 Mr.B.A.Desai, Addl.Solicitor General for
 respondent No.1.

¶6

 Mr.Sunil Kadam for respondednt Nos.3 & 7.

¶7

 Mr.Anil Menon for respondent No.4.

¶8

 Mr.Ranjit Shetty i/by PDS Legal for respondent
 No.5.

¶9

 Mr.M.N. Thakore i/by Thakore Jariwala for
 intervenors.

¶10

 Mr.Ritesh Kulkarni i/by ARA Law for intervenors.
 -----
 W I T H

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.1376 OF 2004

¶12

 Akhil Bhartiya Agnishikha Manch. ... Petitioner
 v/s.
 The Managing Director, Star T.V.
 & ors. ... ... Respondents
 None for petitioner.
 Mr.Ranjit Shetty i/by PDS Legal for respondent
 No.2.
 -----

¶13

CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M. KANADE, J.

¶14

DATED : 17th January 2007

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

-2-

¶18

 2. Writ Petition No.1232 of 2004 is filed in

¶19

 public interest making a grievance with respect to
 the films and various Serials which are shown on
 the Television ("T.V.") channels. The grievance
 principally is that obscene and violent films are
 telecast and also that the T.V. Serials have
 obscene and violent contents. As far as the
 grievance that these films and Serials are
 telecast and ultimately they are shown directly at
 the residences of the viewers, which is certainly
 not desirable, particularly for the minors, a
 detailed order dated 21st December 2005 has been
 passed by a Division Bench of this Court wherein
 as far as the films are concerned, Cable Operators
 and Cable Service Providers are directed in
 paragraphs 30 and 31 of that order not to carry in
 cable service the films other than the films
 sanctioned for unrestricted public exhibition by
 the Censor Board of Film Certificate ("Censor
 Board" for short). That takes care of part of
 prayer clause (a).

¶20

 3. Prayer clause (a) also seeks the action
 against the cable channels and cable net work. As
 far as the T.V. channels are concerned, a new
 regime has come into operation from 1st January
 2007 under which the viewers decide as to which

¶21

-3-

¶22

 channels they would like to see. True that this
 system is operational only in the island city of
 Mumbai or some parts of Delhi as is pointed out,
 but at the same time it is necessary that the
 producers of these Serials also ought to have a
 say, if any orders are to be passed against them.
 They are not before the Court.

¶23

 4. Mr.Vashi, learned Counsel appearing for
 the petitioner, points out that under the law this
 Censor Board is required to certify even the T.V.
 Serials. It has been stated on behalf of the
 Censor Board that they have a paucity of the man
 power. Mr.Vashi submits that this cannot be a
 ground not to have a full-fledged mechanism. We
 quite see force in the submission of Mr.Vashi and
 if there is a requirement of law, the Censor Board
 must take necessary steps so that ultimately the
 Serials are examined and certified as required by
 the law. The fact, however, remains that as of
 now there is no such certification. Wherever
 there is a certification and which is available,
 as far as the films are concerned, on the basis of
 a bench-mark, the Censor Board declares certain
 films as not meant for unrestricted exhibition.
 As far as those films are concerned, as stated
 above, an appropriate order has been passed.

¶24

-4-

¶25

 5. As far as the T.V. Serials and other
 programmes are concerned, the Censor Board must
 take the steps to have an appropriate mechanism
 and the personnel which we expect them to evolve
 as early as possible. In the meanwhile, however,
 if the petitioner or similar kind of citizens have
 grievance against a particular Serial, the better
 course will be that they ought to lodge their
 complaints to the Censor Board and the Censor
 Board, by following the law, which will, of
 course, include some kind of hearing to the
 producers of the Serials, will take appropriate
 decision as to whether they should be certified as
 meant for unrestricted exhibition or otherwise.

¶26

 6. As far as Serials other than those which
 are specifically objected are concerned, we will
 have to wait for the Censor Board to have an
 adequate personnel and as stated above, we expect
 the Censor Board to evolve a machinery and have
 the adequate personnel as early as possible.

¶27

 7. It has also been stated on affidavit on
 behalf of the Central Government that the
 appropriate guidelines are being framed and the
 law in that behalf is also being evolved. As and

¶28

-5-

¶29

 when the same is evolved and the guidelines are
 framed, the regulatory mechanism, if provided
 thereunder, will become operational.

¶30

 8. As far as the newspapers are concerned,
 Mr.Vashi is not pressing for any orders.

¶31

 9. The Petition stands disposed of, though

¶32

 the order passed by a Division Bench with respect
 to the films on 21st December 2005 and
 particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 thereof, as
 modified by order dated 31st August 2006, will
 continue to operate as part of this final order.

¶33

 10. All the interim applications taken out in
 this Petition also stand disposed of with this
 order.

¶34

 11. We make it clear that if any party is
 prosecuted on the basis of paragraphs 30 and 31 of
 the aforesaid order, whatever defences are
 permissible in law and on facts to such party will
 be available to him.

¶35

 12. In view of the order passed in the above
 Writ Petition No.1232 of 2004, nothing survives in
 Writ Petition No.1376 of 2004 and the same is

¶36

 disposed of as rendered infructuous.

¶37

-6-

¶38

(ACTING C.J.)

¶39

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Pratiba Naitthani v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratiba Naitthani v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Sarjerao Jadhav and Ors. Vs Balasaheb Abaji Khopade and Anr.

Nitin Laxmanrao Bhargude Patil Vs Election Commissioner and Ors.

Dinesh Raghunath Mhatre Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjay G. Agaldare. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kirit Somaiya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

kirit somaiya Vs the state of maharastra and Ors. and fakhruddin hyat mohd. khan