{"id":181384,"date":"2006-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-11-01T22:11:35","modified_gmt":"2018-11-01T16:41:35","slug":"director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  613 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nDirector General,Directorate General of Doordarshan & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAnand Patwardhan & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant in the present matter is Doordarshan who
\nhave decided not to telecast the documentary film made by the
\nrespondent titled “Father, son and Holy War”. The respondent
\nis a filmmaker. The respondent no.1 in 1995 submitted his
\ndocumentary film, “Father, son and Holy War”, to the
\nappellant for telecast on National network Doordarshan.
\nRespondent no.1 was to provide a U-matic Certificate for the
\nsame to be aired by Doordarshan.\n<\/p>\n
The documentary film was in two parts, the film dealt
\nwith social realities and issues such as patriarchy, violence,
\nfundamentalism, suppression of women etc.  Part-I was given
\n‘U’ Certificate and Part-II was given ‘A’ Certificate by the
\nCensor Board.\n<\/p>\n
\tA few lines about the film and the producer:-
\nFather, Son and Holy War is the third part of a trilogy
\nof documentary films against communal violence that the
\nauthor made from the mid 1980’s to the mid 1990’s.  His two
\nearlier films In Memory of Friends (1990) (on building
\ncommunal peace in strife torn Punjab) and Ram Ke Naam\/In
\nthe Name of God (1992) (on the Ayodhya crisis) looked at the
\nquestion of class and caste.  Both films won National Awards
\nbut both were rejected by Doordarshan on the grounds that
\nthey would create law and order problems.  In the end, the
\nauthor won the cases in the High Court and the films were
\nfinally telecast by Doordarshan.  No law and order problems
\nresulted and the telecasts were well received.\n<\/p>\n
Father, Son and Holy War (1995) was also shot during
\nthis period.  It looks at the question of gender along with the
\nissue of religious violence.  What triggered this way of looking
\nwas the incident of Sati in Deorala and that fact that
\nthousands of young men were celebrating the death of Roop
\nKanwar.  This led the author to examine the male psyche
\nbehind violence  and the idea that women were property.  It is
\ncommon knowledge that very often sexual violence against
\nwomen accompanies communal riots.  This may be because
\nthe “enemy’s” women are seen as his property and so, worthy
\nof abduction or destruction.\n<\/p>\n
The first part of Father, Son and Holy War (“Trial by
\nFire”) looks at the problems faced by Hindu and Muslim
\nwomen within their own religions.  Part 2 (Hero Pharmacy)
\nexamines the construction of the values of “manhood”.  As the
\nfilm proceeds we become privy to the inner psyche of men and
\nbegin to learn how men are socialized into believing that
\nviolence is desirable.  The film looks at the rhetoric of street
\nsellers of aphrodisiac who create feelings of male insecurity
\nand impotence in their audience and then offer their cheap
\nmedicine as a cure.  It then looks at the rhetoric of communal
\npoliticians (both Hindus and Muslims) and see that they too
\nare appealing largely to their male audiences, they too are
\ntaunting them for their impotence, but the medicine they offer
\nfor the creation of “real men” is hatred against the other
\ncommunity.\n<\/p>\n
On 14.8.1996, the appellant issued a circular which
\nstated that Doordarshan will not telecast any ‘A’ certified adult
\nor U\/A feature film on it. On 28.2.1997, the respondent
\nhanded over a copy of the U-matic Certificate of the
\ndocumentary film to the appellant. However, Doordarshan still
\nrefused to telecast the documentary film.\n<\/p>\n
On 22.9.1998, the respondent no.1, filed a writ petition
\nbefore the Bombay High Court against the refusal of
\nDoordarshan to telecast the documentary film, which was
\ndisposed off by the Division Bench by directing Doordarshan
\nto take a decision on the application of respondent no.1 within
\na period of six weeks.\n<\/p>\n
A selection Committee was constituted on 10.8.1998 by
\nthe appellant to preview the documentary film produced by
\nrespondent no.1. The selection Committee observed that, “The
\ndocumentary entitled ‘Father, Son & Holy War’ depicts the rise
\nof Hindu fundamentalism and male chauvinism without giving
\nany solution how it could be checked. The violence and hatred
\nwhich is depicted in the whole documentary will have an
\nadverse effect on the minds of the viewers” This decision of
\nthe Selection Committee was communicated to the
\nrespondents on 20.8.1998.\n<\/p>\n
Against this the respondent no.1 approached Bombay
\nHigh Court. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
\nallowed the writ and directed the appellant to telecast the
\nrespondent no.1 documentary film “Father, son and the Holy
\nWar” within a period of six weeks in the evening slot. This
\ndecision by the High Court was challenged by the appellant by
\nway of a Special Leave Petition in this Court. This Court
\nobserved that, the Committee which was constituted to
\nconsider the proposal of the respondent was not validly
\nconstituted as required under the guidelines of Doordarshan
\nand therefore the decision taken by the Committee was
\nwithout jurisdiction. This court went ahead to order on
\n12.12.2001 the constitution of a new Committee in accordance
\nwith para 5(ii) of the Guidelines of Doordarshan to consider
\nthe proposal of the respondent within three months of the
\nconstitution of such Committee.\n<\/p>\n
A Committee was duly constituted and on 6.8.2002, the
\ncommittee viewed the documentary film and was of the
\nopinion that, “the film has a secular message relevant to our
\ntimes and our societyhowever, the film contains scenes and
\nspeeches, which can influence negative passionsand the
\ncommittee would like a larger committee with representatives
\nof religion and politics also to see the film and form an opinion
\nbefore it is open to public viewing.”\n<\/p>\n
A larger committee was constituted and viewed the
\ndocumentary film. The said committee on 5.6.2003
\nrecommended the screening of this documentary film on
\nDoordarshan while observing that, “it may alienate sections of
\nIndian society and screening may lead to reactions by
\norganized groups.”\n<\/p>\n
On 11.7.2003, the Prasar Bharati Board pre-viewed the
\ndocumentary film and was of the opinion that the
\ndocumentary film contained scenes which could promote
\nviolence, its production quality was unsatisfactory and its
\ntelecast would be violative of the policy of the Doordarshan of
\nnot screening “A” certified movies. This decision of
\nDoordarshan was communicated to the respondent no.1 on
\n18.7.2003.\n<\/p>\n
A contempt petition was filed by respondent no.1 alleging
\nthe disobedience of the order of the High Court dated
\n12.12.2001. The High Court disposed off the petition by
\nholding that the respondent was aggrieved of the decision of
\nPrasar Bharati Board, and it was open to him to challenge the
\nsame before an appropriate forum.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High
\nCourt and directed Doordarshan to exhibit the documentary
\nfilm of the respondent no.1, “Father, son and Holy War” on
\nchannel I or II within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment
\non a convenient day and time as fixed by Doordarshan. It is
\nagainst this decision of the High Court of Bombay the
\nDoordarshan has come on appeal to this Court. .
\nWe heard Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the appellants and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondent. We have viewed the screening of
\nthe documentary film titled “Father, son and the Holy War”
\nwhich is the subject matter of the present case before us. We
\nhave also carefully perused all the documents presented by
\nboth the parties before us.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
\nDoordarshan submitted that the decision not to telecast the
\nfilm of the respondent is based on valid and germane
\nconsiderations and no film maker can claim that he has a
\nvested right that a film made by him must be telecast on
\nDoordarshan.  He submitted that as a matter of policy the
\nDoordarshan do not telecast films which are certified as “A” or
\n“UA”.  Admittedly Part one of the film in question has been
\ncertified as “U” and Part two as “A”.  The policy of
\nDoordarshan of not telecasting “A” or “UA” films has not been
\nchallenged by the respondent here.  Therefore, the
\nDoordarshan cannot be directed to telecast the film contrary
\nto its policy.  Learned counsel also submitted that the telecast
\nof the film is likely to give rise to communal violence and riots
\nand that Doordarshan has reached the remote corners of the
\ncountry.  It has a wide audience which mainly consists of
\nilliterate and average persons who will be largely affected due
\nto screening of the film.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondent submitted that the refusal by Prasar
\nbharti to telecast the film is a clear violation of the
\nrespondent’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
\nConstitution.  He urged that the film carries a strong message
\nfor unity and secular India and there is no justification to
\nprevent its telecast on Doordarshan.  It is submitted that the
\nDoordarshan has a policy of telecasting award winning films
\nand documentaries and the action of the Doordarshan in
\nrefusing to screen the film contrary to the said policy is totally
\nunfair, unjust and arbitrary.  Learned counsel further
\nsubmitted that the Censor Board has approved the film and
\nthe guidelines of Doordarshan in telecasting the film cannot be
\nsubstantially different from the guidelines laid down under the
\nCinematographic Act, 1952.  In any event, according to the
\nlearned counsel unless the said guidelines are read down they
\nwould be liable to be strucked down as grossly violating the
\nfundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the rival submissions, the following substantial
\nquestions of law arise for adjudication by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tWhether any film producer has a right to insist that
\nhis film must be shown on Doordarshan?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhether the High Court was justified in directing
\nthe screening of the film certified as U\/A.\n<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding the fact as a matter of policy,
\nDoordarshan does not telecast adult film?\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhether the policy of Doordarshan of not
\ntelecasting adult movies can be said to be violative
\nof Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as has
\nbeen held by the High Court?\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tWhether or not it is open to the High Court to
\nsubstitute its opinion for that of the competent
\nauthority as to whether a film is fit for being telecast
\non a public medium such as Doordarshan?\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant case, the documentary of the respondent
\nhas been cleared by the Central Board for Film Certification,
\nthe Film Certification Board, which is a body of experts was
\nobviously not of the view that the film promotes communal
\nviolence, otherwise, the film would not have been certified by
\nthe Board for public exhibition.  In view of this background,
\nwe are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Prasarbharti
\nBoard.\n<\/p>\n
The film of the respondent no doubt deals with the
\ncommunal violence.  At the same time, we also listen to a
\nstirring speech made by a woman activist on a street who
\nexhorts people to “remember their neighbours” during
\ncommunal riots.  The film contains a narrative of a muslim
\nwoman, a social worker who has been raped by the communal
\nmurderers of her husband and that of a Hindu mill worker
\nwhose children were killed in the bomb blast which occurred
\nin the aftermath of the communal riots.  The attempt of the
\nfilm maker is to portray the miseries of the innocent victims of
\nthe communal riots.  These sequences convey an obvious
\nmessage of communal harmony as an ordinary muslim slum
\ndweller is seen in the closing sequences of the film re-building
\nthe destroyed home of his Hindu neighbour.  The message of
\nthe filmmaker cannot be gathered by viewing only certain
\nportions of the film in isolation but one has to view it as a
\nwhole.  There are scenes of violence, social injustices but the
\nfilm by no stretch of imagination can be said to subscribe to
\nthe same.  They are meant to convey that such social evils are
\nevil.  There cannot be any apprehension that it is likely to
\naffect public order or it is likely to incite commission of an
\noffence.  We are shocked at the observation of the Prasar
\nBharati Board that the film is not suitable due to
\nunsatisfactory production quality and that the film has
\nnothing specific to convey in public interest.  The documentary
\nwas given two awards in 42nd National Film Festival of 1995
\nconducted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
\nGovernment of India as Best Investigative Film and Best film
\non social issues.  It is, therefore, highly irrational and incorrect
\nto say that the documentary which was selected as best
\ninvestigative film and best film on social issues promote
\nviolence and its production quality was unsatisfactory and
\nthat the film has no specific message to convey.  The
\ndocumentary has won several awards in the International film
\nfestivals.  However, the Prasar Bharati Board strangely
\ncomments that the film had nothing specific to convey in
\npublic interest.  This view of the Prasar Bharati is in contrast
\nwith the opinion expressed by the two committees constituted
\nby the appellants.  The first committee held that the film had a
\nsecular message relevant to our times and our society and it
\nwas a critique of the current concept of masculinity and the
\nviolence it legitimises.  The second committee said that it was
\na very good film and must be shown.  Ordinarily the decision
\nof the selection committee in all cases shall be final as per
\npara 5(viii) of the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of
\nInformation and Broadcasting for telecasting films.  However,
\nit appears that the appellants were bent upon rejecting the
\nfilm and the decision of the committee was overruled by the
\nPrasar Bharati Board under the pretext that the guidelines
\nprohibit Doordarshan from exhibiting any film which is
\ngranted ‘A’ certificate and since part II i.e. Hero Pharmacy has
\nbeen granted ‘A’ certificate telecast of the said film is not
\npermitted under the guidelines framed by the Ministry of
\nInformation and Broadcasting.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the guidelines relied upon by the
\nDoordarshan are not even framed under the Cinematograph
\nAct but they are merely internal guidelines for the guidance of
\nthe officials of the Doordarshan.  Therefore, in our view, it
\nwould not be proper to deny telecast of an award winning
\ndocumentary merely on the ground that part II of the said
\ndocumentary is certified as “A” by the Censor Board.  In our
\nview, a documentary cannot be denied exhibition on
\nDoordarshan simply on account of it’s “A” certification or “UA”
\ncertification.  Mr. Rajeev Sharma made an attempt to object to
\ncertain scenes in the documentary especially one scene where
\na person is seen selling aphrodiscies on the road and while
\ndoing so is making certain remarks on the sexuality of males.
\nAs indicated in paragraphs supra, a film must be judged from
\nan average, healthy and common sense point of view.  If the
\nsaid yardstick is applied and the film is judged in its entirety
\nand keeping in view the manner in which the filmmaker has
\nhandled the theme, it is impossible to agree that those scenes
\nare offended by vulgarity and obscenity.  It is interesting to
\nnote that these objections were not even raised by any of the
\ncommittees constituted for the purpose of assessing the film.\n<\/p>\n
OBSERVATIONS:\n<\/p>\n
One of the most controversial issues is balancing the
\nneed to protect society against the potential harm that may
\nflow from obscene material, and the need to ensure respect for
\nfreedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of
\ninformation and idea. The Constitution guarantees freedom of
\nexpression but in Article 19(2) it also makes it clear that the
\nState may impose reasonable restriction in the interest of
\npublic decency and morality.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial question therefore, is, ‘what is obscenity?’
\n The law relating to obscenity is laid down in Sec.292 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, which came about, by Act 36 of 1969.
\nUnder the present sec.292 and sec.293 of the Indian
\nPenal Code, there is a danger of publication meant for public
\ngood or for bona fide purpose of science, literature, art or any
\nother branch of learning being declared as obscene literature
\nas there is no specific provision in the act for exempting them
\nfrom operations of those sections.\n<\/p>\n
The present provision is so vague that it becomes difficult
\nto apply it. The purposeful omission of the definition of
\nobscenity has led to attack of Section 292 of the Indian penal
\nCode as being too vague to qualify as a penal provision. It is
\nquite unclear what the provisions mean. This unacceptably
\nlarge ‘grey area’, common in laws restricting sexual material,
\nwould appear to result not from a lack of capacity or effort on
\nthe part of drafters or legislators.\n<\/p>\n
The Indian Penal Code on obscenity grew out of the
\nEnglish Law, which made court the guardian of public morals.
\nIt is important that where bodies exercise discretion, which
\nmay interfere in the enjoyment of constitutional rights, that
\ndiscretion must be subject to adequate law. The effect of
\nprovisions granting broad discretionary regulatory powers is
\nunforeseeable and they are open to arbitrary abuse.
\nIn Samaresh Bose & Anr v. Amal Mitra & Anr<\/a> (1985)
\n4 SCC 284 it was observed by this Court:  “The concept of
\nobscenity is moulded to a very great extent by the social
\noutlook of the people who are generally expected to read the
\nbook. It is beyond dispute that the concept of obscenity
\nusually differs from country to country depending on the
\nstandards of morality of contemporary society in different
\ncountries. In our opinion, in judging the question of obscenity,
\nthe Judge in the first place should try to place himself in the
\nposition of the author and from the viewpoint of the author.
\nThe judge should thereafter place himself in the position of a
\nreader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to
\nfall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible
\ninfluence the book is likely to have in the minds of the readers.
\nThe judge should thereafter apply his judicial mind
\ndispassionately to decide whether the book in question can be
\nsaid to be obscene within the meaning of Section 292, IPC by
\nan objective assessment of the book as a whole and also of the
\npassages complained of as obscene separately.”
\nThis is one of the few liberal judgments the courts have
\ngiven. The point to worry about is the power given to the judge
\nto decide what he\/she thinks is obscene. This essentially
\ndeposits on the Supreme Court of India, the responsibility to
\ndefine obscenity and classify matters coming on media as
\nobscene or otherwise.  This Court has time and again adopted
\nthe test of obscenity laid down by Cockburn CJ. The test of
\nobscenity is, ‘whether the tendency of the matter charged as
\nobscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are
\nopen to such immoral influences, and in whose hands a
\npublication in media of this sort may fall.’
\nInterestingly, this test of obscenity, which was laid down
\nin the Hicklin case in 1869, is the only test in India to
\ndetermine obscenity.\n<\/p>\n
The Encyclopedia definition of obscenity states, ‘By
\nEnglish law it is an indictable misdemeanor to show an
\nobscene exhibition or to publish any obscene matter, whether
\nit be writing or by pictures, effigy or otherwise.’ The precise
\nmeaning of “obscene” is, however, decidedly ambiguous. It has
\nbeen defined as something offensive to modesty or decency, or
\nexpressing or suggesting unchaste or lustful ideas or being
\nimpure, indecent or lewd”.\n<\/p>\n
In the United States, obscene material is any material or
\nperformance, if: the average person applying contemporary
\ncommunity standards would find that the subject matter
\ntaken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; the subject
\nmatter depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual
\nconduct of a type described in this section; and the subject
\nmatter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
\npolitical, educational or scientific value.
\nTherefore, one can observe that, the basic guidelines for
\nthe tier of fact must be:\n<\/p>\n
(a) whether ” the average person, applying contemporary
\ncommunity standards” would find that the work, taken as a
\nwhole, appeals to the prurient interest.;\n<\/p>\n
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
\noffensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
\napplicable state law; and\n<\/p>\n
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
\nartistic political, or scientific value.\n<\/p>\n
The Constitution of India guarantees everyone the right to
\nfreedom of expression. India is also a party to the International
\nCovenant on Civil and Political Rights and therefore bound to
\nrespect the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by
\nArticle 19 thereof, which states:\n<\/p>\n
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
\nright shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
\ninformation and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers,
\neither orally, in writing or in print, in form of art, or through
\nany other media of his choice.\n<\/p>\n
This right guaranteed by the Indian constitution is
\nsubject to various restrictions. Like, respect of the rights or
\nreputation of others; protection of national security or of
\npublic order, or of public health or morals etc.
\nThe catchword here is ‘reasonable restriction’ which
\ncorresponds to the societal norms of decency. In the present
\nmatter, the documentary film Father, Son and Holy War
\ndepicts social vices that are eating into the very foundation of
\nour Constitutional. Communal riots, caste and class issues
\nand violence against women are issues that require every
\ncitizen’s attention for a feasible solution. Only the citizens
\nespecially the youth of our Nation who are correctly informed
\ncan arrive at a correct solution. This documentary film in our
\nconsidered opinion showcases a real picture of crime and
\nviolence against women and members of various religious
\ngroups perpetrated by politically motivated leaders for
\npolitical, social and personal gains.\n<\/p>\n
This film so far as our opinion goes does not violate any
\nConstitutional provision nor will create any law and order
\nproblems as the Doordarshan fears. This movie falls well
\nwithin the limits prescribed by our Constitution and does not
\nappeal to the prurient interests in an average person, applying
\ncontemporary community standards while taking the work as
\na whole, the work is not patently offensive and does not
\nproceed to deprave and corrupt any average Indian citizen’s
\nmind.\n<\/p>\n
In addition we are emphasizing here on the fact that
\nmany Committees have screened this documentary film
\nincluding a committee set up by the appellants themselves
\ninvolving media experts, representatives of various religions
\nand politics, who have opined that, “It is a very good film and
\nmust be shown. It may alienate sections of Indian society and
\nscreening may lead to reactions by organized groups. In the
\nunanimous view of the committee that protest is an important
\npart of Indian democracy and was a part of its fight for
\nindependence, which is also a compelling reason for the film to
\nbe shown. Keeping these in mind the committee recommends
\nthat the screening of the film be preceded by a discussion in
\nwhich alternative views are given by persons with different
\nviews.” As we see, only Doordarshan has an opposition with
\nairing the documentary film stating policy related difficulties.
\nTo this we are of the view that, since the Central Board of Film
\nCertification has already cleared the documentary film in
\nquestion by award of U\/A certificate, the policy of
\nDoordarshan of non-telecast of ‘A’ certified films will not stand
\non the way of this film being aired. A blanket ban as this one
\nwill be in violation of Article 19(2) of the Constitution which
\nguarantees right of a citizen to express himself\/herself. The
\nSupreme Court has clarified on this regard way back in 1970,
\nin the case of K.A. Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr,<\/a>
\n(1970) 2 SCC 780 where this Court held that, “Sex and
\nobscenity are not always synonymous and it is wrong to
\nclassify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or
\nimmoral.”  In yet another case of Ramesh vs. Union of India,
\n(1988 (1) SCC 668) this court has observed that, “that the
\neffect of the words must be judged from the standards of
\nreasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men, and not
\nthose of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent
\ndanger in every hostile point of view. This, in our opinion, is
\nthe correct approach in judging the effect of exhibition of a film
\nor of reading a book. It is the standard of ordinary reasonable
\nman or as they say in English law “the man on the top of
\nClaapham omnibus.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence, in our view, the correct approach to be taken here
\nis to look at the documentary film as a whole and not in bits,
\nas any message that is purported to be conveyed by way of a
\nfilm cannot be conveyed just by watching certain bits of the
\nfilm. In the present situation the documentary film is seeking
\nto portray certain evils prevalent in our society and is not
\nseeking to cater to the prurient interests in any person.
\nTherefore, we have no hesitation in saying that this
\ndocumentary film if judged in its entirety has a theme and
\nmessage to convey and the view taken by the appellants that
\nthe film is not suitable for telecast is erroneous.
\nIn this regard, the guidelines issued by the Central
\nGovernment to evaluate films gain importance and can be
\nreferred to. Clause 3 of the Guidelines reads as follows:
\n“Clause 3: The Board of Film Certification shall also
\nensure that the film:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tis judged in its entirety from the point of the
\noverall impact; and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tis examined in the light of the period depicted in
\nthe film and the contemporary standards of the
\ncountry and the people to which the film relates,
\nprovided that the film does not deprave the
\nmorality of the audience.”\n<\/p>\n
It was held in Bobby Art International & Ors v Om Pal
\nSingh Hoon & Ors (1996) 4 SCC 1, K A Abbas (Supra) that a
\nfilm was required to be viewed as a whole, and in the context
\nof the message that the filmmaker desired to communicate.
\nIn this film too, scenes must be seen in the context of the
\nmessage of exploitation of women through insecurities created
\nin men and the film must be evaluated in its entirety.
\nIn LIC of India v Prof. Manubhai D. Shah with UOI v
\nCinemart Foundation (1992) 3 SCC 637, it was held that
\nmerely because a film was critical of the State Government,
\nDD could not deny selection and publication of the film. This
\nfilm was an award winning film about the Bhopal Gas
\nTragedy. Likewise, in S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram &
\nOrs<\/a> (1989) 2 SCC 574, it has been observed that Censors
\nshould not have an orthodox or conservative outlook, but
\nmust be responsive to change and must go with the current
\nclimate. The state cannot prevent open discussion, however
\nhateful to its policies. This was about a film that criticized the
\nexisting reservation policy and proposed an alternative system
\nbased on economic deprivation.\n<\/p>\n
We also are aware that the documentary film made by
\nrespondent no.1 has won many National and International
\nawards. The documentary film won National Awards in two
\ncategories viz “Best Investigative Film” and “Best Film on
\nSocial Issues” in the 42nd National Film Festival 1995,
\nconducted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
\nThe documentary film also won Special Jury Award in Israel,
\nJapan and Canada. Keeping these facts in view we find it
\nabsurd that a documentary film that has won the National
\naward is facing problems for it being screened on the National
\nTelevision.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn our opinion, the respondent has a right to convey his
\nperception on the oppression of women, flawed understanding
\nof manhood and evils of communal violence through the
\ndocumentary film produced by him.  As already noticed, this
\nfilm has won awards for best investigative film and best film
\non social issues at the national level. The documentary film
\nhas won several awards at the international level as well.  The
\nfreedom of expression, which is legitimate and constitutionally
\nprotected, cannot be held to ransom on a mere fall of a hat.
\nThe film in its entirety has a serious message to convey and is
\nrelevant in the present context.  Doordarshan being a State
\ncontrolled agency funded by public funds could not have
\ndenied access to screen the respondent’s documentary except
\non specified valid grounds.\n<\/p>\n
The refusal of the appellants to telecast the film in the
\ncurrent case in the face of unanimous recommendations by
\ntheir own Committees set up in accordance to the direction of
\nthis Court is an issue to be addressed apart.  The High Court
\nof Bombay has not substituted its discretion for that of the
\nauthorities.  On the contrary, the High Court has ruled that
\nwhen the decision making process has itself resulted in the
\nrecommendations to telecast; it is not open to the
\nDoordarshan to find other means just to circumvent this
\nrecommendation.  The High Court has only corrected the
\nfailure of Doordarshan to follow through with their own
\ndecision making process on the pretext of a Circular which
\nbeing non-statutory cannot be used to limit right of
\nexpression.  Besides the Circular, in terms, applies only to
\nfeature films and not to documentaries.  Before ruling thus,
\nthe High Court viewed the film for itself which is a process
\nfollowed innumerable times before even by this Court in cases
\nconcerning the official media to satisfy itself the
\nrecommendations of the Expert Committee was not patently
\nabsurd.  Thus, it is not a case where the High Court has
\nsubstituted its judgment for that of the decision-making
\nauthority but one where the decision made by due process has
\nbeen upheld by the High Court.  In our view, the Doordarshan
\nbeing a National Channel controls airwaves, which are public
\nproperty.  The right of the people to be informed calls for
\nchannelizing and streamlining Doordarshan’s control over the
\nnational telecast media vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
We also are of the view that, Doordarshan all through the
\npresent matter has been displaying a sad reluctance in
\ntelecasting this film, which was made almost ten years ago. We
\ncan trace a history of Doordarshan not telecasting many films
\nin spite of them being award winning films at the national and
\ninternational level, this can be seen in the case of films like “In
\nMemory of Friends”, “Ram ke Naam” etc. In addition an
\ninteresting observation that can be arrived is that
\nDoordarshan has been finding flimsy excuses time and again
\nas clear from the facts in not telecasting the documentary film
\nin question every time the film was sought to be aired either at
\nthe instance of the respondent or due to the orders of the
\ncourt. This in our view in highly irrational and is blatant
\nviolation of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
\nConstitution. This behavior of Doordarshan would justify us in
\nstating that Doordarshan is being dictated by rules of
\nmalafides and arbitrariness in taking decisions with regard to
\nIn light of the above, the instant appeal at the instance of
\nDoordarshan is devoid of any merits.  Thus, the impugned
\njudgment deserves to be upheld and sustained by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the orders
\npassed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench are
\naffirmed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant-Doordarshan is directed to exhibit the
\nentire documentary film of the respondent Father, Son and
\nHoly War on Channel No. 1 or 2 within 8 weeks from today on
\nsuch convenient date and time as may be fixed by
\nDoordarshan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 613 of 2005 PETITIONER: Director General,Directorate General of Doordarshan & Ors. RESPONDENT: Anand Patwardhan & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/2006 BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5277,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Director General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Director General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006"},"wordCount":5277,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006","name":"Director General,Directorate ... vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T16:41:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-generaldirectorate-vs-anand-patwardhan-anr-on-25-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director General,Directorate … vs Anand Patwardhan & Anr on 25 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}