Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Petitioner.
Tamas is based on a book written by Sree Bhisham Sahni.
It further shows how extremist elements in both companymunities infused tension and hatred for their own ends.
The petitioner is a practising advocate of the Bombay High Court.
The respondents herein challenged the said order before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
It may also be mentioned that four episodes of the said serial have already been telecast.
Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Parimal K. Shroff, P.H. Parekh, Sanjay Bhartari and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
He approached this Court by means of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate order restraining the respondents, namely, the Union of India, the Director General of Doordarshan, New Delhi, Blaze Advertising Pvt.
One Javed Ahmed Siddique filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay being Writ Petition No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No.
107 of 1988.
The same came up before a learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay who while admitting the same on 21st of January, 1988 had granted stay of further telecasting of the said serial on T.V. till further orders.
The judgment is impugned in the special leave petition which is taken on board and is also disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Ltd. and Govind Nehalani, being the producer from telecasting or screening the serial titled Tamas and to enforce petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution and declaring the screening or televising of Tamas as violative of section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
201 of 1988.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This writ petition was disposed of by our Order dated 1st of February, 1988, we indicated therein that we will give our reasons shortly.
The Writ Petition No.
It further shows how the killings and looting took place between these companymunities before the pre independence at Lahore.
This we do by this judgment.
The two learned Judges, namely, 1015 Justice Lentin and Justice Mrs. Sujata Manohar saw the companyplete serial on 22nd of January, 1988 and vacated the stay by an order dated 23rd of January, 1988.
107 of 1988 is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
It depicts the period prior to partition and how companymunal violence was generated by fundamentalists and extremists in both companymunities and how innocent persons were duped into serving the ulterior purpose of fundamentalists and companymunities of both sides and how an innocent boy is seduced to violence resulting in his harming both companymunities.
