ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12th March, 1999 by which learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, the petitioners/appellants have filed this appeal.
2. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner No.1 is a company dealing in the business of production, acquisition etc. of various programmes, films and the like and telecast, export etc. thereof. Petitioner No. 2 owns a well known film magazine namely Zee Premiere. Petitioner No. 3 is the editor of said film magazine while petitioner No. 4 is one of the shareholders of petitioner No.1 company. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory corporation constituted under Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of india) Act, 1990. Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Executive Officer while respondent No. 4 is the Deputy Director General (Doordarshan) of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 allots time slots for telecast of programmes and events etc. on National’ Network (DD-1) and Metro Channel(DD-2) against payment of telecast fee. Petitioner No. 1 in the year 1998 started event namely Lux Zee Cine Awards and on the applications dated 27th February, 1998 and 3rd March, 1998 submitted by it, the respondent vide letter dated 5th March, 1998 permitted petitioner No.1 to telecast said event on 14th March, 1998 as per the terms and conditions contained in above letter dated 5th March, 1998.
3. For the year 1999 petitioner No. 2 authorised petitioner No. 1 to organise aforesaid event to deal with respondents in relation to the telecast of the programme on National network of Doordarshan. In connection with said event, the petitioners got published the poll forms in various leading newspapers of the country and spent more than Rs. 80 lacs. Besides, poll forms were also made available on the internet. Almost 4.5 lacs poll forms have been received by the petitioners from all over the country by post and about 2.5 million poll responses have been received through internet site. All these in turn have been handed over to Price Water House and Gallop Poll MBA for the purposes of audit and consequent result. Results of the poll are to be announced during the event to be held on 14th March, 1999 at Mumbai. It is further stated that the event is likely to be cheered and visited by the renowned celebrities in the fields of film, drama, music, technology, media, corporate world, advertising etc. from India and abroad. Event will also carry the live performances by Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Juhi Chawla, Daler Mehandi, Franz Harare and Kenu Reaves etc. Entry to the event is restricted by invitation only. Public at large in India will be entertained by the live programmes to be performed by the artists. It is alleged that the cable penetration in Indian homes is not more than 20% of the total television homes and, therefore, the entire public in India cannot be entertained without the event being telecast on Doordarshan. Thus, through the letter dated 17th February, 1999 which was followed by the letter dated 3rd March, 1999, petitioners approached the respondents with request for live telecast of said mega event on the National network of Doordarshan on 14th March, 1999 during the period 8.30 PM to 10.30 PM with 6/7 slots of half-an-hour each against payment of fee as charged by the respondents, In the year 1999 itself, respondents have telecast similar events namely Filmfare Manikchand Award, 1999, Screen Videocon Award, 1999 and Femina Palmolive Miss World Award, 1999. Since the petitioners did not hear anything from the respondents, on 4th March, 1999 petitioner No. 4 personally met respondent No. 4 to know the outcome of the letters dated 17th February, 1999 and 3rd March, 1999. During the course of discussion, respondent No.4 while declining to provide any reply to the petitioners in writing categorically told petitioner No.4 that respondents have decided not to allow the telecast of said event on Doordarshan as the same was being telecast by the rival channel Zee TV. It is asserted that the decision of respondents in not permitting the telecast of aforesaid event is in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was prayed that by issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, the decision taken by respondents in declining the telecast of said event be quashed. It was further prayed that by issue of writ of mandamus, the respondents be directed to telecast said event to be held on 14th March, 1999, live for which the petitioners are agreeable to abide by the terms and conditions of the rate card etc. issued by the respondents.
4. Respondents have contested the petition by filing a joint reply on the affidavit of Basharat Ahmed, Deputy Controller of Programmes, Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India), Director General, Doordarshan. It is stated that the respondent have taken decision not to telecast Lux Zee Cine Awards, 1999 since it is organized by and bears the name of Zee TV which is a competitor TV channel of DD. Other award functions telecast by the respondents namely Filmfare Manikchand Awards, Screen Videocon Awards and Femina Palmolive Miss Word Awards stand on a different footing in as much as they were not organized by the Petitioners. It is further stated that there was a lot of criticism when Lux Zee Cine Awards in the year 1998 was telecast on DD-2. In substance, the reliefs claimed in the petition amounts to compelling the respondents to enter into a contract with the petitioners which is impermissible in law.
5. We heard Sh. Arun Jetley, Sr. Advocate for the petitioners/appellants and Sh. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Addl. Solicitor General for the respondents.
6. Short question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the claims of the petitioners to get telecast Lux Zee Cine Awards, 1999 on DD is covered particularly by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. If so, can they be legally denied that claim by the respondents on the ground of the petitioners being competitor.
7. In the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting & Ors. Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors., which is the main stay of the argument advanced by Sh. Jetley, one of the questions of law which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was – Has an organiser or producer of any event a right to get the event telecast through an agency of his choice whether national or foreign ? While dealing with that question after noticing almost all the decisions on the subject, it was held in the majority decision on page 213 of the report:-
“We may now summarise the law on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as restricted by Article 19(2). The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self expression which is an important means of free conscience and self-fulfilment. It enables people to contribute to debates on social and moral issues. It is the best way to find a truest model of anything, since it is only through it that the widest possible range of ideas can circulate. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy. Equally important is the role it plays in facilitating artistic and scholarly endeavors of all sorts. The right to communicate, therefore, includes right to communicate through any media that is available whether print or electronic or audiovisual such as advertisement, movie, article, speech etc. That is why freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the Press. The freedom of the Press in terms includes right to circulate and also to determine the volume of such circulation. This freedom includes the freedom to communicate or circulate one’s opinion without interference to as large a population in the country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach.
This fundamental right can be limited only by reasonable restrictions under a law made for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The burden is on the authority to justify the restrictions. Public order is not the same thing as public safety and hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on the ground that public safety is endangered. Unlike in the American Constitution, limitations on fundamental rights are specifically spelt out under Article 19(2) of our Constitution. Hence no restrictions can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on grounds other than those specified under Article 19(2).”
8. On page 224 of the report it was further held:-
“However, the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained. The former is the right of the telecaster and the latter that of the viewers.”
9. According to the petitioners about 4.5 lacs poll forms have been received by them from all over the country by post in addition to approximately 2.5 million poll responses through the internet site in connection with Lux Zee Cine Awards, 1999. Further the event is likely to be cheered and visited by the renowned celebrities in the fields of film, drama, music, technology, media, corporate world etc. from India and abroad and live performances are also to be given by Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Juhi Chawla, Daler Mehandi, Franz Harare and Kenu Reaves etc. Respondents in their short reply have not controverted the said averments made in the petition. Due to limited cable penetration which is stated to be not more than 20% of the total television homes all over the country, rest of the 80% of the television homes in India would be left out from viewing said entertaining & informative mega event if it is not telecast on National network (DD-1)/Metro Channel (DD-2). Since the right to freedom and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution also includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained as held in Cricket Association of Bengal’s case (supra), the petitioners have the right to get telecast said event on National network (DD-1)/Metro Channel (DD-2), ofcourse, subject to fulfillling the requirements and conditions of the rate card etc. laid down by the respondents.
10. This brings us to the latter part of the question referred to above. Article 19(2) of the Constitution which is relevant reads as under:- “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
11. Freedom of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) can be controlled only on the grounds stated in said Article 19(2). The reason of Zee TV being a competitor TV channel of DD for not allowing the petitioners to get telecast aforesaid mega event as disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, obviously does not fall in any of the grounds stated in said Article 19(2) of the Constitution. That being so, the executive decision taken by the respondents in not permitting the telecast of the event in question on the said ground is bad in law. Order under appeal which only notices the views taken in the minority judgment ignoring the law enunciated in the majority judgment in Cricket Association of Bengal’s case (supra), thus cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside.
12. But at the same time we would like to point out that the first appellant cannot be permitted to project and promote its brand equity on the National network in the name of disseminating information in the form of Cine Awards. Therefore, the first appellant must drop the name ‘ZEE’ from ‘ZEE CINE AWARDS’ as being a competitor it cannot be allowed to gain publicity at the cost of Prasar Bharti and Doordarshan. It will be open to the respondents to consider the question whether Cine Awards fulfill the requirements for being telecast on the Doordarshan Channel. It is needless to say that any decision which the respondents take must be informed by reason and the same should be communicated to the appellants. We will also like to clarify that in case the respondents decide to allow the telecast of the Cine Awards in question it will be for them to decide the time and the date when the same can be telecast.
13. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.