S SINGARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner praying to Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents 3 to 6, who are conducting prize schemes in the media.

(2.) The writ petitioner is a trader in wooden furniture and a Carpenter by profession. The enactment of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1980 also the Prize Competitions Act, 1955 were mentioned. The grievance of the petitioner is that recently the visual media and the press are coming out with prize schemes, announcing fabulous prizes, the highest being a prize of Rs. One Crore. According to the petitioner, these are nothing but violation of the provisions of the Act mentioned above. The petitioner also issued a notice to respondents 1 and 2 on 12-10-2000 requesting them to take action against 3 to 6 for the illegality committed by them; it is further stated that on earlier occasion when prize schemes were announced by weekly magazines during Deepavali festival, they were stopped by the order of this Court reported in Voice v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 Writ LR 86. As no fruitful action is taken so far, the writ petitioner is before this Court with the prayer as stated above.2A. The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that in the programme "Koteeswaran" being conducted by the third respondent, no question of gambling is involved. No element of wagering or betting is also involved. Out of the candidates, who applied, for the purpose of selection to the chair, only the person, who is able to answer the question using his/her skill is taken to the chair, and he has to answer the questions put to him out of the options given. It is stated that the said person need not pay or put any stake in the hope of any prize or reward, and that it is only the skill of the person which is put to test, and if he is successful in answering the question, payment is incidental to that and if the answer is wrong, the person is ousted out from the competition with whatever money the person has earned by answering correct questions. It is categorically denied in the counter-affidavit that "Koteeswaran" programme is concerned with any money circulation. It is further stated that the programme is a game of skill and during the programme, many of the advertisements are being shown in short breaks, which commercially promote the goods advertised for. It is further stated that the decision in Voice's case (1999 Writ LR 86) (cited supra) is not applicable to this case. It is further stated that such programmes are being telecast in other television channels in Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta and when they were put under challenge, High Courts of those States had held that the programme only involves skill. With these, the third respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) The fourth respondent has Hied a counter-affidavit stating that the Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 will not apply to this case as neither a chit nor circulation of money is involved. It is stated that public is informed on matters of public interest, by means of quiz that is conducted, and it is a test of skill. It is also stated that the right to conduct legitimate prize competitions based upon substantial skill is a right recognised under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in RMDC Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR J957 SC 628. It is also stated that even as per the decision of this Court in 1999 Writ LR 86, the element of substantial degree of skill is the crucial test for finding out whether the scheme is hit by the provisions of the Act, 1978, and in this case, the exercise of substantial skill is very much available. No such element of Inducement or loss to the public by means of any money that is parted with is available in conducting these programmes. It is also stated that there is no drawing of lots or any other method to determine the winner by chance and that the winner is the person who has won the maximum number of points based on skill alone. It is further stated that all questions to be asked an devised for persons of reasonable learning and understanding which the vast majoritj of the public constitutes and, therefore, the allegation that the conduct of programmes amounts to gambling Is not correct.