JOSEPH VARGHESE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's minor daughter Indulekha Joseph now aged 5 years is a talented artist. She had been given coaching in Bharathanatyam since January, 1993 and, according to the petitioner, Indulekha performed dance programmes at several places. Petitioner alleges that Indulekha is an expert in Bharathanatyam and she has received testimonials from eminent artists. Petitioner relies on Ext. P3 certificate issued by a prominent artist and news items published in dailies. Petitioner approached the third respondent, the Director of Doordarshan Trivandrum and made a request to permit the petitioner's daughter to telecast a Bharathanatyam performance. The third respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner's daughter is only a minor girl and therefore, the Bharathanatyam performance cannot be allowed to be telecast in Doordarshan, and some other dance programme could be included in another programme intended for budding artists. Petitioner went on making representations and Ext. P4 is one such representation. In Ext. P4 the petitioner made a threat to stage indefinite fast in front of the Doordarshan. As there was no reply from the third respondent petitioner offered a Sathyagraha in front of the office of the Doordarshan. Petitioner alleges that refusal of the third respondent to permit the petitioner's daughter to telecast Bharathanatyam performance in Doordarahan is violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner's child to have Bharathanatyam performance telecast in Doordarshan.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had approached the third respondent to exhibit Bharathanatyam talent of his daughter through Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum. Doordarshan has to make assessment of its own for presenting items in programmes. Doordarshan Kendra had not included Bharathanatyam in the children's programme. Performance of children in the field of classical items is not included in the Doordarshan children's programme. Bharathanatyam programme on Doordarshan is given only to auditioned artists. Only persons above the age of 16 are auditioned for this purpose. This was explained to the petitioner when he approached the third respondent. But he was not prepared to accept these explanations and he went on to the extent of staging a 'Sathyagraha' in front of the gate of Doordarshan Kendra. Exceptional talent of a child cannot be a criteria for allotting a programme in the Doordharshan. The talent has to be developed and disciplined through long practice. The artists who have come through such long practice are auditioned and the best of talents are selected for telecast.

(3.) I heard the petitioner's counsel and the Central Government Standing Counsel. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's child by name Indulekha Joseph is a talented artist and she is capable of performing Bharathanatyam in an exceptionally good manner and therefore, the third respondent Doordharasan should have given an opportunity to the petitioner's daughter to telecast her Bharathanatyam programme. According to the petitioner, the denial of such an opportunity to the petitioner's daughter is violative of the valuable right of the petitioner under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was argued that the Doordarshan being a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution should have acted reasonably and the refusal on the part of Doordarshan to telecast the dance programme of the petitioner's daughter is an arbitrary exercise of power. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Kanubhai D. Shah ( 1992 (3) SCC 637 ). That was a case where the respondent, the Executive trustee of the Consumer Education and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, after undertaking research into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation published a study paper portraying the discriminatory practise adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation recovering high premiums. In the study paper it was alleged that because of high premium vast majority of people cannot afford to take insurance policies. Copies of this study paper was widely circulated. A member of LIC wrote a counter article 'LIC and its Policy Holders' and published the same as an article in "Hindu", a daily newspaper. The respondent prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same paper. The member of LIC then published his own counter article in LIC's house magazine called "Yogakshema" The respondent thereupon requested the LIC to publish his rejoinder to the said article in the magazine, and LIC refused to publish the same in Yogakshama. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the refusal to publish the rejoiner in the magazine is violative of fundamental rights under Art.14 and 19(1)(a). The LIC denied this right on the ground that their magazine was an in-house magazine circulated amongst subscribers who were policy holders and employees and agents of the Corporation. The High Court rejected the plea of LIC and held that,