MAHESH B. @ MAHESH PANJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought for a declaration that Rule II and VII of the Rules for the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, to the extent it prohibits applicants from questioning the decision of the jury and demanding them to submit an affidavit to such an effect. Petitioners also seek to quash the Government Order constituting the jury for considering the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, apart from a direction to restrain respondents from considering the entry submitted by respondents 8 and 9 for the Best Documentary Award in the General category.

(2.) Pursuant to the invitation of the Kerala State Chalachithra Academy for Television Awards 2022, petitioners and respondents 8 to 14 submitted their entries for award for the Best Documentary (General) and other categories. Alleging that the documentary submitted by the eighth respondent could not have qualified to be considered for the Award in the said category and the petitioners have challenged not only the grant of Award to the documentary created by the eighth respondent but also the constitution of the jury as well.

(3.) Shorn of all the unnecessary details pleaded in the writ petition, it has to be stated that the petitioners and the seven respondents had submitted their respective documentaries for the Kerala State Television Awards 2022 (for short 'the Awards'). The jury consisted of six members including the second respondent - the Member Secretary of the Chalachithra Academy. The petitioners allege that though the jury ought to consist of distinguished persons in the field of Visual Arts, none of the jury members fell in that category and hence they were not competent to judge the entries. Petitioners also allege that when the awards were declared on 6/3/2024, the documentary of the eighth respondent was chosen, while that of respondents 10 and 11 were selected for the Award for Best Documentary (Science and Environmental) and that of 12 th respondent as the Best Documentary (Biographical). Since the petitioners soon realised that the documentary of the respondents ought not to have even been considered for the awards, they have approached this Court questioning the grant of awards. Various discrepancies, including the language of the documentary submitted by the 8th respondent, lack of competence of the jury and the alleged bias of the 5th respondent - the Chairman of the Jury Committee in favour of his former colleague - the 10 th respondent and husband of the eighth respondent, has, according to the petitioners, vitiated the awards. Rules II and VII of Ext.P1 Rules to the extent it prohibits applicants for awards, from questioning the decision of the jury and compels them to submit an affidavit, undertaking not to question the awards, is also sought to be declared as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.