CHANDRA RAJAKUMARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent a women Organisation called Prerana Woman's Welfare Organisation, Hyderabad proposed to hold a beauty contest called 'Miss Andhra Personality Contest' (in short, beauty contest) on 10-8-1997 at Bharathi Vidya Bhavan, Hyderabad which was opposed by the other organisations called A.P. Mahila Samakhya, Hyderabad, All India Mahila Samskrithika Sangam (AIMSS), Progressive Organisation for Women (POW), and one Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Foundation, Hyderabad by sending petitions to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, based upon which this public interest litigation (PIL) was registered as a taken up matter and the organisations were treated as the petitioners whereas the Respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Respondent No.2, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Respondent No.3 Prerana Women s Organisation, Hyderabad were called upon to answer the petitioners. Subsequently, the other respondents were added among whom Respondent 4 is one Dr. Rahna, a Social activist of Hyderabad was added by virtue of WP.MP.NQ.24994/97 and Respondents 4(a) to 13 were added suo motu by an order of this Court dated 17-10-1997 in view of their proposal to hold another beauty contest at Hyderabad on 1-11-1997. In view of certain important questions involved in the case and in the nature of this having been a PIL on such representations, several persons were permitted to file their affidavits and material papers. On behalf of the petitioners one Chandra Raja Kumari, Smt Parsha Padma Smt. G, tolitha, Smt. Sandhya, Sri Sunil Tandon, Smt. UmaNaidu, Smt. Prematatha Dr. C.S. Subba Rao, Smt. Santha, Kumari, Mrs. Chowdary Leela Devi Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, Mrs. Pushpinder Kour have filed their affidavits, whereas or behalf of the respondents, Smt. Sarala Ramesh, Secretary of the third respondent Sri R.P. Singh, the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad and Sri S. V, Ramana Reddy for the suo motu impleaded parties have filed their counter affidavits. The Respondents 4(a) to 13 did not choose to produce any material or documents inspite of giving opportunity as they propose to challenge the petition on the ground of locus standi in addition to this Court having no jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to deal with a matter like this.

(2.) The Petitioners and the memorialists supra have opposed the beauty contest of women in general and the petitioners have opposed the Respondent No.3 in particular to hold it due to certain serious allegations. Smt DSR. Krishna, the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the memorialists and Sri M.A. Ban, the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4, have raised the common contentions in addition to the parties raising the contentions as hereunder: 1. Beauty contests are unconstitutional as it offends Article 51 A(e), Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India in asmuch as repugnant to International Conventions and Covenants and the resolutions of the United Nations and Conferences on Women. 2. They are opposed to the decency, public morality and dignity of women in general and women of Indian society in particular and repugnant to Indian culture, traditions, and the social values. 3. The beauty contests are intended to exploit women for commercialisation by capitalists and the business world for enriching themselves at the cost of indecent representation of women in all forms and by all methods as they are transformed into marketable commodity. 4. They are also intended to divert the youth and the spirit of the youth in the country from their real problems of socio and economic survival and development by developed countries as against the developing countries like India 5. They are injurious to the body, the mind and the social existence of the entire womanhood and the society at large. 6. The beauty contests are discriminatory in choosing women only by vested interests in the society for personal gain and exploitation 7. The beauty contests are the means to achieve the lecherous and lustful desire of the erratic and sexual maniacs. 8. The beauty contests in any form amounts to indecent representation of women within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 prohibited under Sections of the said Act and all its materials prohibited under Section 4 of the Act are illegal under the Act, they being indecent or derogatory or denigrating women or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals and as they are punishable under Section 6 of the said Act rigorously. 9. The beauty contests in any form outrages the modesty of a woman and amounts to an assault punishable under Section 364 of IPC and therefore must be taken to be prohibited in law. 10. The beauty contests being grossly indecent, scurrilous or obscene and intended to black mail the women community of the society amounts to objectionable performance within the meaning of Section 2(iv) of the A.P. Objectionable Performance Prohibition Act, 1996 and are liable to be prohibited by the Government under Section 3(1) and by the Dist. Collector under Section 4(1) of the said Act and punishable under Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act and therefore cannot be held without the permission of the concerned authorities and the police authorities under Rule 6 and 106 and 108 of the Rules relating to place of public entertainment in the City of Hyderabad 1351 Fasli framed under Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli and therefore per se illegal and prohibited in law. 11. The beauty contests in all forms called by any name violates the human rights enshrined in the Constitution of India in various forms which includes the right of a woman to live happily with dignity and decency. 12. Beauty contests of women in any form should be prohibited by an independent legislation and till then to be prohibited or regulated by appropriate directions by this Court in its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

(3.) In regard to the beauty contests proposed to be held by the third respondent, the contentions are: (i) Prerana Women' Welfare Organisation is indulging in illegal activities to gather beautiful ladies and thereby turn them into flesh trade; (ii) the organisation is making false advertisements to attract the girls and the ladies to attend the beauty contest which are indecent and inhuman; (iii) the organisation under the guise of cultural contest called beauty contest is minting money from the public; (iv) such beauty contests are bound to create inferiority complex among women section of society in the business method of beautification for advertisement of the goods of the commercial world in addition to bringing down respect for women; (v) the organisation has undertaken to demean and vulgarise the importance of women by holding such contests; (vi) the title to be conferred on winning participants in the beauty contests are not certified or recognised to have grade values. (vii) the beauty contest to be held by the organisation can never be one of its welfare measures of women and such tides are being sold for huge sums of money making use of the same Judges and even altering the decisions given by the Judges for the contest; (viii) There should not be any discrimination in holding such contests only for women and this should be extended to men also to expose them to similar consequences or atleast to regulate such contests by proper scientific and known methods to avoid mismanagement and misdealing of the situations both by this Court and by the authorities concerned. (ix) An expiry into the misdeeds of the organisation and appropriate action against all the concerned with the organisation is necessary and may be ordered;Mr. Pattabhi and Mr. Ashok Reddy, the learned Advocates for the Respondent No.3 while denying the allegations against the Respondent No.3 as above and repelling the above contentions have tried with the contentions taken by the memorialists for Respondent No.3 that the proposed beauty contest is not first of its kind and it is being held since two or three years with all norms, decency and dignity of the women and the society at large in addition to following all the required rules and regulations and to the knowledge of the appropriate authorities including the police and at no time they have violated any human right or law or any constitutional properties. They have produced plenty of materials like albums of the photos, videos, magazines etc., in support of their grounds and contentions. It is also contended by them that the petitioners have been in the habit of troubling the third respondent by several litigations without any success and this is the latest one of their such attempts, that none of the allegations made by them attribute any indecent or immoral representation of women in the beauty contest held by Respondent No.3 and on the other hand such representations of the petitioners and of the memorialists has been a venting of personal vendetta due to personal grudge. They have pointed out that certain disappointed persons in the contest have set up the petitioners to send such representations. They have denied all the allegations of misconduct or mismanagement of such beauty contests for personal gain or commercialisation They have also undertaken that nothing of the kind of misapprehensions expressed by certain persons before this Court about the women and dignity of women will occur in the proposed beauty contest to be held by Respondent No.3 nor it has any basis. They also submit that Respondent No.3 is prepared to abide by any condition to hold the contest which is in tune with the required norms, properties, the legal discipline and the conformance to law. A any rate, it is contended by them that a PIL in the present nature is not maintainable in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Amitabh Corporation Limited v. Mahila Jagrn Manch and others, (1997) 7 SCC 91 (in short, ABCL case) and that this Court will not interfere in such a matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court. Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Advocate for the newly added Respondents 4(a) to 13, in addition to the grounds taken in the counter affidavit of Respondent No.3, has contended that in the first place, the impleading of the proposed parties was necessary, that the allegations against the third respondent will not apply to his parties, that as per Amitabh Bachan case supra, just because certain persons like petitioners are agitated over such contests, the Court will not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, that the proposed beauty contest is undertaken by Respondent No.4(a) through other respondents as part of International Tourism of the year in the interests of the country and they having made all the preparation and investment of huge sums of money, delegates from more than 50 countries having come to participate in the contest proposed to be held on 1-11-1997, just because the petitioners are agitated over certain issues as to women etc., the proposed respondents should not be prevented from holding the contest genuinely and according to norms. Certain undertakings are also given in the counter affidavit of the Secretary of the third respondent as to the proper manner in which the contest will be held without serving alcohol etc.. As a whole, the petition is sought to be rejected without conceding any contention raised by the petitioners and other similar persons or organisations.