1992 (7) TMI 337 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Right u/s Article 19(1)(a) by LIC.
2. Violation of Fundamental Right u/s Article 19(1)(a) by Doordarshan.

Summary:

1. Violation of Fundamental Right u/s Article 19(1)(a) by LIC:
The first appeal concerns the Gujarat High Court's decision regarding the refusal by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to publish the respondent's rejoinder in its magazine, Yogakshema. The respondent argued that this refusal violated his fundamental rights u/s Article 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The High Court concluded that LIC's magazine, though claimed to be an in-house publication, was available to the public on subscription and invited public contributions. Therefore, the refusal to publish the rejoinder was arbitrary and violated the respondent's rights. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that LIC, being a state instrumentality, must act fairly and reasonably, especially when funded by public money. The Court directed LIC to publish the rejoinder with an explanation and apology for the delay, thus rejecting LIC's appeal.

2. Violation of Fundamental Right u/s Article 19(1)(a) by Doordarshan:
The second appeal involves Doordarshan's refusal to telecast a documentary film titled "Beyond Genocide," which was awarded the Golden Lotus for the best non-feature film of 1987. Doordarshan refused on the grounds that the film was outdated, lacked relevance, and did not meet their norms for fairness and balance. The High Court ruled that these norms were executive guidelines and not law within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, thus upholding the respondent's right u/s Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the film had already been granted a 'U' certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification and that Doordarshan, as a state-controlled agency funded by public money, could not deny access to the screen without valid grounds. The Court dismissed Doordarshan's appeal, affirming the High Court's directive to telecast the film.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the High Court's decisions that the actions of LIC and Doordarshan violated the respondents' fundamental rights u/s Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.