LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-35

R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 12, 2013
R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as pro bone publico praying for a declaration that broadcasting of paid commercials by the respondents in All India Radio is illegal, unconstitutional, repugnant to the law with respect to broadcasting, infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and in violation of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner has expressed his grievance about broadcasting of paid commercials in the form of messages and advertisements by the respondents during and in the course of, or in between the radio programmes of All India Radio, which was established in the year 1936 for providing news and information to the masses of India. All India Radio is coming under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which according to the petitioner is controlling 326 radio stations using 24 languages. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that instead of conducting broadcasting towards the proclaimed objectives, All India Radio is broadcasting paid commercials by way of sponsored messages and advertisements of the Ministries/Departments of Government of India, Public Sector Undertakings and commercial companies, without any regard for the language of the radio programme and language of the paid commercials, which is repugnant to the law with respect to broadcasting, infringing the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the paid commercials are being broadcasted only in the interest of and for the benefit of its sponsors and it is not for the common good of the people.

(3.) The petitioner, who is an Advocate, appeared as party-in person and reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit during the course of his arguments and prayed for issuing a writ as prayed for.