P L LAKHANPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises a question which brings to light an interesting aspect concerning the citizen's right to claim a licence for operating a transmitter for commercial and other purposes of a general nature. According to the statement in the petition, the petitioner is a Journalist by profession and Editor of a Weekly known as the 'Evening Views'. He applied to obtain a licence for a 100 Watt Medium Wave Broadcasting transmitter which has been rejected. The petitioner claims that the rejection is both mala fide as well as unconstitutional.

(2.) The facts show that the petitioner was advised by letter dated 5th May, 1973, by the Assistant Wireless Adviser to the Government of India, that a licence was necessary to maintain and work a Wireless Station in India and he was sent a copy of the prescribed application form. The petitioner sent this form duly filled in along with a letter dated 29th Sept., 1973, in which he stated that he claimed the licence as a matter of right under the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution to be exercised through the medium of broadcasting. He also stated that if he did not get a letter sanctioning the licence, he would move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution to enforce his fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He made it clear that he wished to set up the broadcasting station to disseminate news, comments on current issues of concern to general public including commercial programmes which would highlight opposition views and also news concerning opposition parties and Latin American countries. The Station would announce itself as Voice of India for English broadcasts and Bharat Vani for broadcasts in Hindi and Urdu. It can well be seen that the petitioner had in view a test case to determine his fundamental rights of operating a broadcasting station even when he applied for permission to operate a broadcasting licence and eventually he moved this Court by means of this petition.

(3.) On 13th Nov., 1973, the petitioner was informed that it had not been possible to grant the licence in the interest of public order.