A companytempt petition was filed by respondent number1 alleging the disobedience of the order of the High Court dated 12.12.2001.
Against this the respondent number1 approached Bombay High Court.
This companyrt went ahead to order on 12.12.2001 the companystitution of a new Committee in accordance with para 5 ii of the Guidelines of Doordarshan to companysider the proposal of the respondent within three months of the companystitution of such Committee.
Both films won National Awards but both were rejected by Doordarshan on the grounds that they would create law and order problems.
On 22.9.1998, the respondent number1, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court against the refusal of Doordarshan to telecast the documentary film, which was disposed off by the Division Bench by directing Doordarshan to take a decision on the application of respondent number1 within a period of six weeks.
It is against this decision of the High Court of Bombay the Doordarshan has companye on appeal to this Court.
This decision of Doordarshan was companymunicated to the respondent number1 on 18.7.2003.
In the end, the author won the cases in the High Court and the films were finally telecast by Doordarshan.
However, Doordarshan still refused to telecast the documentary film.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ and directed the appellant to telecast the respondent number1 documentary film Father, son and the Holy War within a period of six weeks in the evening slot.
A few lines about the film and the producer Father, Son and Holy War is the third part of a trilogy of documentary films against companymunal violence that the author made from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s.
No law and order problems resulted and the telecasts were well received.
What triggered this way of looking was the incident of Sati in Deorala and that fact that thousands of young men were celebrating the death of Roop Kanwar.
The first part of Father, Son and Holy War Trial by Fire looks at the problems faced by Hindu and Muslim women within their own religions.
A selection Committee was companystituted on 10.8.1998 by the appellant to preview the documentary film produced by respondent number1.
His two earlier films In Memory of Friends 1990 on building companymunal peace in strife torn Punjab and Ram Ke Naam In the Name of God 1992 on the Ayodhya crisis looked at the question of class and caste.
On 28.2.1997, the respondent handed over a companyy of the U matic Certificate of the documentary film to the appellant.
The film looks at the rhetoric of street sellers of aphrodisiac who create feelings of male insecurity and impotence in their audience and then offer their cheap medicine as a cure.
The documentary film was in two parts, the film dealt with social realities and issues such as patriarchy, violence, fundamentalism, suppression of women etc.
Father, Son and Holy War 1995 was also shot during this period.
It is companymon knowledge that very often sexual violence against women accompanies companymunal riots.
It looks at the question of gender along with the issue of religious violence.
On 14.8.1996, the appellant issued a circular which stated that Doordarshan will number telecast any A certified adult or U A feature film on it.
A Committee was duly companystituted and on 6.8.2002, the companymittee viewed the documentary film and was of the opinion that, the film has a secular message relevant to our times and our societyhowever, the film companytains scenes and speeches, which can influence negative passionsand the companymittee would like a larger companymittee with representatives of religion and politics also to see the film and form an opinion before it is open to public viewing.
This led the author to examine the male psyche behind violence and the idea that women were property.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court and directed Doordarshan to exhibit the documentary film of the respondent number1, Father, son and Holy War on channel I or II within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment on a companyvenient day and time as fixed by Doordarshan.
This decision by the High Court was challenged by the appellant by way of a Special Leave Petition in this Court.
Part I was given U Certificate and Part II was given A Certificate by the Censor Board.
Dr. AR.
Lakshmanan, J. The appellant in the present matter is Doordarshan who have decided number to telecast the documentary film made by the respondent titled Father, son and Holy War.
The respondent is a filmmaker.
