LAWS(KER)-1987-12-3

T PARAMESWARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

Decided On December 17, 1987
T.PARAMESWARAN Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under S.10 of the Kerala Dramatic Performances Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The District Collector, Ernakulam who is the first respondent herein, passed an order dt. 17-3-1987 under S.4(1) of the Act, copy of which is produced as Annexure-III to the Memorandum of Appeal, prohibiting the staging of the drama "Kristuvinte Aaram Thirumurivu" for a period of three months in any part of the Ernakulam District. This appeal is filed by the Convenor of Aasayaviskara Samrakshana Samithy, Ernakulam District which is stated to be a society for protecting the freedom of expression and speech of the public and for creating consciousness among the public to protect the said rights. Originally, the District Collector, Ernakulam and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam alone were the respondents in the appeal. Subsequently, some organisations and individuals filed petitions for impleading them as additional respondents. On those applications additional respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded in the appeal and other petitioners were allowed to argue the appeal as intervenes. Additional 3rd respondent is Kerala Catholic Youth Movement and additional 4th respondent is P.M. Antony who is the author of the drama.

(2.) The appellant filed C.M.P. 11197/1987 to stay the operation of the order under challenge. On this application our learned brothers Sivaraman Nair and Pareed Pillay, JJ. passed the following order on 10-4-1987.

(3.) Probably our learned brothers adopted a somewhat similar procedure followed by the Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780 where the film in respect of which the petition before the Supreme Court arose was specially screened for the learned Judges. Incidentally, we may also state that in that judgement the Supreme Court also extracted the principles on which the obscenity of a book was to be considered, which were enunciated in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 1 SCR 65 which were adopted by the Khosla Committee which recommended them for the guidance of film censors.