NARENDRA KOCHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very unusual petition filed by a person who claims to be a public minded person and describes himself in paragraph 3 of the petitioner as a citizen of India entitled to be ensured that the rule of law is upheld and every offender is treated equally by law as envisaged under Ariticle 14 of the Constitution. Beyond that the petitioner has not in any manner shown his credentials in the society, his status in the society or even his role as a person having experience in the matter.

(2.) There is nothing stated about the status of the petitioner or his standing or for that matter even as to his avocation in life or his qualifications. A complaint is made against the gambling which goes on in the television channels sponsored by various manufacturers or sponsors in the form of various competitions. The petitioner has referred to the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, the Madras Gaming Act, the Hyderabed Prevention of Public Gaming Act and the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act of 1957.

(3.) The definition of gambling as it is found in various dictionaries is relied on and thereafter a reference is made to sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Contract Act which declares that the wagering contract is a nullity. The provisions of the West Bengal Act, referred to above, are then brought out in the petition and ultimately in paragraph 17 the petitioner refers to various private channels including the Star TV Group, Zee Group, the Sony Group etc. According to the petitioner these channels are presently ruling the television world. It is then pointed out that each of the television channel in connivance with the communication channel providers to have unjust enrichment, indulge in programmes whereby citizens are induced to participate in chance game and hence to gambling. The petitioner has then made a specific reference to "the heavy weight programmes" like Indian Idol, Sa re ga ma, Deal ya no Deal, all live cricket and major sporting events, Aisa Des hai mera etc. It is then pointed out that in order to take part in those competitions, a viewer has to send a short message service (hereinafter called SMS in short) and though the rate of ordinary SMS is one rupee per SMS when a viewer has to take part in such competition the rate is six rupees. The petitioner then says that from correct entries the ultimate winner is selected by putting a lottery. This, according to the petitioner, is gambling. The petitioner also makes a reference to various attractive prizes offered in those competitions like Maruti Wagon R, Blackberry Mobile set, gift vouchers etc. and contends that even sending SMS which costs six rupees in place of ordinary one rupee amounts to wagering on the part of the viewer who takes part in those competitions. The petitioner then has described that this has caused ill effect on the society in general and children in particular. The petitioner calls such partaking in the competitions as electronic gambling. He has also made a reference to Entry 34 or Entry 62 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule and puts it that it is for the legislature to prevent the public gambling house from being maintained. The petitioner has also tried to describe the ill effects of the mobile phones and maintains that all these are crippling the society.