R BASU Vs. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Arun Aggarwal, a practising Advocate has filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under Sections 293,293 & 294 IPC, inter-alia, against Star TV, Star Movies and V Channels as many as 30 (thirty) persons have been arraigned as accused persons in the said complaint. Other persons, apart from aforesaid Star TV channels, are the persons who are incharge of and responsible for the day to day affairs of these channels or the various cable" operators transmitting these channels. This is termed as probono public prosecution by the complainant in which he brought to the notice of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that on these channels obscene and vulgar TV films were shown and transmitted through various cable operators. According to the complainant, this amounted to obscenity and, therefore, accused persons committed offence under Sections 292/293/294 IPC and under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. On this complaint, learned CMM viewed these films. Thereafter, on 9.4.1997, he ordered police inquiry referring to the police the issue as to 'who are the persons responsible for the exhibition of the films?'. After the police report was received, the complainant was examined on 17.7.1997. Thereafter, arguments were heard and impugned order dated 24.9.97 was passed, prima facie finding that the four films shown on these TV channels as obscene and taking cognizance, accused persons No. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 to 30 (i.e., except accused No. 3 & 6) were summoned under Section 292 IPC, Section 4 read with Sections 6 & 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 5A read with Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Challenging this summoning order, these petitions are filed by accused No. 5, 8 & 22.

(2.) Before adverting to the nature of challenge on the basis of which petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings, it would be necessary to scan through the impugned order which is very detailed one running into twenty two pages. In this order after highlighting that TV as a power, which like all other power, can be used for constructive as well as destructive purposes; highlighting importance and significance of television and its impact on the life of public; explaining the concept of freedom of speech as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the reasonable restrictions which can be imposed thereupon, the learned Judge proceeds to comment upon the tendency of showing obscene programmes on TV. There is also a discussion, in the impugned order, about the effect of movies on children. Thereafter, he has commented that it is the right of every nation to maintain a decent society and in view of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, various legislations have been enacted by the Parliament which are named in the impugned order including Cinematograph Act, 1952, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, thereafter, examines in detail the issue of censorship in the light of various judgments given by the Supreme Court from time to time, the guidelines issued by the Censor Board and also provisions of some statutes in this behalf. In this perspective, the learned Judge then explains the contents of four movies which were shown on Star TV and finds them as obscene and, therefore, summons the accused persons as mentioned above. Without going into the other aspects of the order, it would be, however, apposite to reproduce the discussion dealing with the law on censorship and the infringing films. These portions of the order are extracted below which are self-speaking:

(3.) May be, detailed discussion on various aspects, including lecture on morality, was not needed. We are concerned with the contents of the movies shown on T.V. Prima facie view of the learned CMM that the movies are obscene in nature is not questioned before me. That is a matter of evidence, in any case. It seems that petitioners are conscious of this fact. Therefore, they have not challenged the impugned order on this aspect. Obviously, in a case like this, argument had to be of technical nature and that is precisely the course of action adopted by the counsel for the petitioners.