iN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALo~Ré:._"_T'~V.Vv
DATED THIS THE 13%' DAY OF OCTOBER 2d(":§$' ' *'
PRESENT _W__
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DiNAKARAN,L:'¢HiiEF.,}uS':'1k::§:-._.«
AN35 .
THE HOBPBLE MR..1us*r1cE Mo;5i}mMs3~r§AN'fHA1\zAGc§u9AR
WRIT APPE_AL lsiri; 1Asv32§g£)Gs%*£Gf3mgREs3
BETWEEN:
Shri S'. Na:-ayang' ,
Sfo Subba Raddy" 5 H
Aged about.3'£">"*ycar3, V A
Producer] Director"
Kannada Feature Films} %
Residing at Ni:-,1'7', I'e:.~pssf,= ' _ «
Lwmainagar, B¢isavc,swara'
Banga1ort:--ES«6{3 079 ' APFELLANT
Szti Ms Raje'z1dra Senior Advocate, for M/s Rajendra
Prasaé.' -am} ..Assc2{;iat,§:s)
' "-~~*AND: '
» Kai7nataka"Stéte Commission for Women,
A KEB Buildings
Kempegoivda road
. --Béngeéiore 560 009
-Répresented by its Secretaxy .. RESPON9EN'§'S
D» Sn" B.Veerappa, Government Acivocate )
Kannada feature film "Cheluvina Chittara" which has
completed 100 days of its run in all 37 centres
been released. It is alleged that a complaint] 1~;f:a_"s'V
filed by N.V.Venkatara1I1a:n.iah and others,
Kanakapura town, ciated 8.9.2007: befa;~e"eee§méfase preaecsgt,
Karnataka State Commission _wo:na:[1 L'
thae the heroine of the -- is aged
14/ 15 years studying in :»+:;sj'kmaae to act in the
film with the here:"(}a11es}1"," the age of the
heroine, bag in from of the
school witf1_ot'he1= presence, doing certain
acts which are"1<.1ot in and on account of this kind
sehoolteaehers and others are iooking at the
in the schools in a bad manner and
such' young girls has become very common; it is
~ stateiilfihat when gents are wearing fuli dress, the young
are:ii1ade to act wearing haii' dress ete., It is also further
that the Fiim Chambers of Commerce and Censor
Board should take approgriate action before releasing such
V. movies and in case of faiiure to take action, the Women
Association is responsible for the same and it is atisiséeratble
to a court; of law.
2.2) eased on the said comp1§eint'_'_'ds;ted._i8;<§;2§)C57.,.'iiie
Respondent-Commission issut%51--.:,i'"'~~.I$Iotie6 »'i..£¥-f2Gi()"E* L'
under the provisions of the ” “Com;r:ission for
Women Act, 1995 ( for ii to the appellant
directing him to “Commission on
29.9.2007 for Aggrieved by
the said *2} ‘ihefiappeflant-writ petitioner
preferred 1.9/2007 before this Court
seeking to quesh ‘
‘ i3” single Judge after careful perusal of the
‘j_})V§,*’VViI1e writ petitioner and the stand taken on
_ of Commission, observing that it is only a show-
Iifiotice and the appellant-petitioner instead of replying
sfiowing cause to the said notice has rushed to the Court,
of the writ petition by order dated 18.9.2008,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply to the
shoW–cause notice issued by the respondent, within’ ‘at
of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy.~A4of
Respondent was also dtected to reeeive–tlxejetfiiyd-VI.to.V”beffiied
by the appel1ant–petitioner and Vconei<1_et.A_t}v1e
apprepriate orders, in accordancefiith 1ew,. '
4) Aggrieved by the epgkeflant has come
upinthis app6a1″.<_:;~ _ _ V . .,
5) Maj senior counsel for the
appeflant–iwI*it that it is a pseudonymous
complaint met; ‘;\£’:g’f«lenkataramanaiah and others
V,.with01}t~§’.,tlf1iéiTVV and address and based on such
eompiaint,.__the«C5emmission could not have issued notice to
toeieppear for the inquiry; that the film was
released efter the Censor Board of Film Certification
the film and granted “U” Certificate for universal
” ..__iV1nrejstI’ieted public exhibition and of the 5 members of the
of Censor Board, three were women and all of them
‘V having viewed the fiim has approved and released the film for
{ \
x
t
public View and if there were any obscene or objectionable
scenes as to the dress or acting or behaviour of the characters’. 4_
in the ffim, especially the heroine,” ‘ j 2
Board woukd have ordered for cut]
film; that the appellant is a renowned: ‘
producer of Kannada fi.11ns’,~~..a =a_we1’1′-Vve1’sed lyricist
He has produced good many of them
have bagged film “Cheluvina
Chittara” in 37 centres all
over the “in the film industry; that
the appellant ‘is a for women and projects
and degicts in high esteem and has lot of
V. ‘w.conce§*n foif ti1e.__women in the society; that the commission
widdfich-“.__is to enquire into the matter is virtually
V V’ sitt3’ng'”i.n over the decision of the Censor Board which
sautvhority created under the Central Statute; that the
.:(1o{;’:ee ‘issued under Section 5 of the Act is without
” and autnority of the Commission as envisaged
under Section 9 of the Act.
5.1) In support of the contention that when once a
Statutory Authority under the Cinematogaph Act, has
issued a certificate for exhibition of the filxn,
Commission has no authority to issue notice *to.’the”9;ppc11_.ér1t,
the Mr Rajendra Prasad, learned
following rulings of the Suprexee«–eomt~..
(1) KAABBAS Vs UNION of-INBIA AN’?
(197o)2 see 780;, e ‘ ‘ 1 ”
(ii) RAJ KAPOOR Vs (1t9ge:;;2escc 175;
(iii) or-®,JA;oAJIvAN RAM AND
OT?v.?IERSe».. ;f.1V98?f;)2 See 57*’4;””
(iv) A”:-soeey “–§§’TERNATIONAL Vs OM PAL
sxmozar eoow & ongeas -(1996) 4 see 1
_ 6) .. vv___§3ovemment Advocate reiterated the
A”eontefltioI:;s.th;f;1tvweze urged before the learned single Judge.
given our careful consideration to the
eubmissiorfie “niade by the learned counsel on either side.
‘$431) It is clear from the provisions of the Act that the
Eiiozziimission has get exclusive power to look into the
,.\’
complaints and to take suo moto action of matterefreiating
thereto deprivation of women’s right. Section 9( “Act
empowers the Commission to look into the to
take suo-mote action of matters to ‘1 it ‘ V a ‘
(i) deprivation of women’s zfighté-s;._ V V _ _
(ii) nonmllplementation flaws egaeted provide
protection to women and to achieve the objective
of equality and dex.re1opm%ei;t§””if]: .. _
(iii) nonweompiiance ._ policy, decisigns, guidelines or
aimed ~~’:at'” tilifigatiiiig hardships and
piioiritdirig relief to women and
take Iiissueis-.t_a_ri.s_ing out of such matters with
appropriate’
8.2 )5 of the Act reads thus:
A ‘ of the Commission: The Commission
. investigating any matter for the
of this Act, have all the powers of a Civil
cottxjt} under em: Procedure Code, 1903 (Central
tact 5 of 1908) in trying a suit and in particular in
frespect of the foilowing matters namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance
of any person from any part of the State
and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of
any documents;
(e) receiving evidence on aificlavtits;
(d) reqnisitioning of summoning
records or copy thereof fron3.– of; u ‘v
public office; 9 _ _ _
(e) issuing commission for exoiplitaaiioiiélll
witnesses and 2
m any other which may be
8.3) Ptlrsuant to_.the_ ..pf*o_i’lsions of the Act,
the V the complaint filed by
has issued notice to the
appellajut to befofo it for personal hearing. If the
has any gievanoe or objections
the only option for him is to appear before
” the Commission and me his objections, instead of rushing to
_ .. J .A Q ‘j CQh*”l{l; \\
The Supreme court; in the ease of SPECIAL
‘ .:’_4l}iRl£CFOR AND ANOTHER Vs. GHULAM GHOUSE AND
ANQTHER reported in 2004 Am sow 416 has held thus:
7,.
-i0«
” 5. This Court in a large number of cases has
deprecated the practice of the High
entertaining writ petitions questioning
the show–cause notices stalling ‘
proposed and retarding investigative ti-zjici
actuai facts with the L
presence of the par’iies._.{_Jr1iessA:t’he iisi’
satisfied that the Show cai.g’se.%notice_ :’tot:ii1y”non
est in the eye _of ‘=a_»bso1:;1te_ of
jurisdiction of the’e.1:ii-1io1§ityi_to”eVen~investigate into
facts, writ petitions for
the mere asking routine and the
writ’ “sheii1<i iiivaiiably be directed to
restsendi paiise notice and take all
stancis writ petition. Whether the
sifiow 'notitteiiiiiwas founded on any iegai
is aijifiisdietionai issue which can even be
' Iecipient of the notice aifid such issues
n acijudicated by the authority issuing the
L ve1y.,__"notice initiaiiy, before the aggrieved could
AA Tappsfoach the Court."
” , V835) In the instant case, admittedly, the appeilant has
‘ responded to the Show cause notice and flied his
.,’o’bjections, but straightaway has approached this Court in a
“” 7″