LexAJAY GOSWAMI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AJAY GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DECEMBER 12, 2006 B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(J)(a) and 21. Newspapers-Freedom of speech and expression-Scope, ambit and C limitation of-Sexually explicit ma.terial-Exposure of minors to-A writ petition was filed seeking protection to ensure that minors were not exposed to sexually exploitative materials; whether or not the same is obscene or is within the law-:'.Prayer made for issue of guidelines to all the newspapers regarding the matter which may not be suitable for the reading of minors or D which may require parents' or teachers' discretion-Direction to appoint a committee to suggest ways and means for regulating the access of minors to adult oriented sexual, titillating or prurient material was also sought- Maintainability-Held: Sufficient safeguards in terms of various legislations, norms and rules and regulations to protect the society in general and children in particular from obscene and prurient contents are already existing- E Leading newspapers have an internal regulatory system to ensure that no objectionable photographs or matters get published-Moreover. it would· be inappropriate to deprive the adult population of the entertainment which is well within the acceptable levels of decency on the ground that it may not be appropriate for the children-Writ petition dismissed-Press Council Act, F 1978, Ss .. 13 & 14-Penal Code, 1860, S. 292-Jndecent Representation of Women Act, 1986, Ss. 4 & 6. G H Words & Phrases: "Obscenif)'''-Meaning of-Explained The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking protection from this Court to ensure that minors were not exposed to sexually exploitative materials, whether or not the same is obscene or is within the law. The petitioner made the following prayers:- 770 AJAYGOSWAMlv. U.0.1. 771 (a) Guidelines in detail may be issued to all the newspapers regarding A the matter which may not be suitable for the reading of minors or which may require parents' or teachers' discretion. (b) Newspapers should have self regulatory system to access the publication in view of those guidelines. (c) The nature and extent of the material having sexual contents should not be exposed to the minors indiscriminately and without regard to the age of minors. The discretion in this regard should vest with parents, guardians, teachers or experts on sex education. B (d) A committee be appointed to suggest ways and means for regulating C the access of minors to adult oriented sexual, titillating or prurient material. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. The prayer No. 1 cannot at all be countenanced inasmuch as sufficient protection in the form of legislations, rules, regulations and D norms have already been laid down under the Press Council Act, 1978, Penal Code, 1860 etc. [793-E) 1.2. Prayer No. 2 equally is vague and no case has been made out for constituting an Expert Committee. (793-F) Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, JT (2006) 8 SC 255, relied on. Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India, [1984) 2 SCC 244, Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993) 1 SCC 645,His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kera/a, (1973) 4 SCC 225, F Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954), MC. Mehtav. State ofT.N., [1996) 6 SCC 756, Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jaganathan, [1986) 2 SCC 679, Vineet Narain v. UO.J., [1998) 1 SCC 226, Vishaka v.State of Rajasthan, [1997] 6 SCC 241, Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, Shri Chandrakant Kalyandas G Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1962) 2 SCC 687, Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, [1985] 4 SCC 289, Alfred E. Butler v. State of Michigan, I Led 2d 412, Networking of Rivers: In Re: (2004) 11SCC360 and Common Cause v. Union of India, [2003) 8 SCC 250, referred to. 2. In view of the availability of sufficient safeguards in terms of various H 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R. A legislations, norms and rules and regulations to protect the society in general and children in particular from obscene and prurient contents, the writ at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable. [796-B, CJ Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR (1967) SC 896, referred to. B 3.1. In judging whether a particular work is obscene, regard must be had to contemporary mores and natio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.