The Union of India companytested the petition by stating that although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnigtly telecast of award winning documentaries, numberdecision was taken to telecast all national award winning documentaries that the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award were number the same as applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of a film for telecast and the respondents film which was previewed by a duly companystituted Screening Committee was number found to meet the requirements for telecast on Doordarshan.
212 of 1989, challenging the refusal on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19 1 a of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the same.
It also took into companysideration the fact that while most of the claims for companypensation for the victims of Bhopal Disaster were sub judice and political parties were raising certain issue, it was inexpedient and unwise to telecast the film.
The respondent submitted his film to Doordarshan for telecast but Doordarshan refused to telecast the same on the grounds that i the film was out dated ii it had lost its relevance iii it lacked moderation and restraint iv it was number fair and balanced v political parties have raised various issues companycerning the tragedy and vi claims for companypensation by victims were sub judice.
This film was awarded the Golden Lotus, being the best number feature film of 1987.
The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to telecast his film on the ground of violation of his fundamental right under Article 19 1 a of the Constitution and for a mandamus to Doordarshan to telecast the same.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.80 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.90 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
H. Parekh, B.K. Brar, Ashok Aggarwal and P.D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Ministry of Information Broadcasting had reconsidered the matter in the light of the respondents representation but did number see any reason to depart from the view taken by the Screening Committee.
T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. Alpana Kirpal, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
It was emphasised that the parameters applied for selection of a film for national award were number the same as applied by the Film Selection Committee of Doordarshan for selection of a film for telecast.
In the order appeal the facts reveal that Shri Tapan Bose, Managing Trustee of the respondent trust, had produced a documentary film on the Bhopal Gas Disaster title Beyond Genocide.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
212 of 1989.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted in SLP C No.
The High Court, therefore, directed the LIC to publish in the immediate next issue of Yogakshema the respondents rejoinder to Mr. krishnans reply to his study paper of 10th July, 1978.
This view of the Gujarat High Court is assailed by the LIC in the first appeal.
The respondent prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same newspaper.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
The LIC publishes a magazine called the Yogakshema for informing its members, staff and agents about its activities.
Emphasis was laid by Doordarshan on socially relevant films which were fair and balanced and the respondents film which was previewed by a duly companystituted Screening Committee was number found to meet that requirement for telecast on Doordarshan.
339 of 1991.
This study paper was widely circulated by the respondent.
The respondent submitted for telecast his film to Doordarshan but Doordarshan refused to telecast the same on the ground the companytents being updated do number have relevance number for the telecast.
The respondent companytended that at the time of the presentation of awards the Central Minister for Information Broadcasting had made a declaration that the award winning short films will be telecast on Doordarshan.
The Screening Committee had founded its decision on the accepted numberms for display of the documentary films on Doordarshan and since the respondents film did number satisfy the numberms for the reason that it lacked moderation and restraint in judging things and expressing opinions, it was found number suitable for telecast.
1254 of 1990.
In the companynter filed to the writ petition it was companytended that although a decision was taken to arrange a fixed fortnightly telecast of award winning documentaries.
2711 of 1979.
2643 of 1992.
short films would be telecast on Doordarshan.
Mr. N.C. Krishnan, a member of the LIC prepared a companynter of the respondents study paper and published the same as an article in the Hindu, a daily newspaper, challenging the companyclusions reached by the respondent in his study paper.
The respondent represented to the Minister for Information broadcasting, but to numberavail.
He, therefore, filed the writ petition, being Civil Writ No.
