MANUBHAI D SHAH PROF Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is the Executive Trustee of Consumer Education and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CENTRE for the sake or brevity) at Ahmedabad. He has filed this petition as a citizen of India and also in his capacity as the Executive Trustee. The Centre published a study entitled A fraud on policy-holders. It is not disputed that it was a scientific research made into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation there in after referred to as the Corporation for the sake of brevity). This study tried to portray and establish the dis- criminatory practices which the Corporation is alleged to have adopted and which adversely affect a large number of policy-holders their invest- ment policies their expense ralio availability of term insurance and other cognate matters. Mr. N. C. Krishnan who is a Director of the Corpora- tion wrote a reply to it. His reply was published in THE HINDU on 6/11/1978. In that reply he tried to challenge the conclusions recorded in by the study prepared by the Centre.

(2.) The Corporation officially publishes a monthly magazine which is called YOGAKSHEMA. The reply from Mr. Krishnan which was publi- shed by The Hindu was republished by the Corporation in Yogakshema. On a scientific and studied basis the petitioner rejoined Mr. Krishnan and replied to his reply. Since Yogakshema had published Mr. Krishnans reply the petitioner requested the Publicity Manager of the Corporation to publish his reply in Yogakshema. By his letter dated 23/01/1979 the Publicity Manager refused to comply with the request made by the peti- tioner. Therefore on 14/02/1979 the petitioner met the Chairman of the Corporation and submitted to him a written representation reque- sting him to publish in Yogakshema his reply to Mr. Krishnans reply. By his letter dated 8/03/1979 the Chairman of the Corporation refused to comply with the request made by the petitioner. The Chairman while refusing to comply with the petitioners request stated that it was a matter of discretion for the Corporation to publish or not to publish the petitioners reply.

(3.) It is that refusal which has led to the institution of this petition.