FASIH CHAUDHARY versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 28-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
FASIH CHAUDHMY 
v. 
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, M.H. KANIA, AND 
S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
' 
Articles 226/ 136 of the Constitution-T. V. Serial-Mirza Ghalib--
, Selection of~Whether discriminatory-Scope and exercise of authority 
by Dourdarshan-Whether proper and in accordance with principle of 
fair-play. 
With a view to produce T. V. Serials based on themes e.g. national 
integration, Communal harmony, against exploitation of chiid litbour, 
equal status for women etc., Doordarsban mvited proposals from 
producers sponsors. The last date for submitting such projects was 7th 
D May, 1986 and it was also made obligatory by Doordarshan that pro-
jects should comply with the guidelines prescribed by it. Clause (2) of 
,the guidelines inter alia required that the proposals for sponsored prog-
rammes should consist of break up of the story' in episodes; complete 
'synopsis of each episode; detailed scenario, script of at least line episode 
etc. As per clause (3) of the guidelines the proposals on' receipt by 
E 
Doordarshan were t11 be given a reference No. and acknowledged. The 
guidelines also prescribed that if any proposal is not accompanied by 
any ofthe documents required by the guidelines, that deficiency was to 
be pointed out to the producer of the proposal and was to be treated 
complete only when all the' requirements contained in the guidelines 
referred to above are complied with. On the. theme of national lntegra-
F 
lion the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 bad 'submitted projects on the 
life and history of the ,great urdu poet Mirza Gbalib. 
G 
H 
The projects submitted by the Petitioner and by another person 
were not approved/selected for telecast as the same were not found to be 
either attractive or interesting but the one sent by Respondent 
No. 2-Gulzar-was selected. The Petitioner challenged the said action 
ot Doordarshan as arbitrary and based on malice by filing writ petition 
in the High Court u/a-226 of the Constitution praying for a direction to 
tlie' L'nion ·of India and the Doordarshan to accept the script of the 
Petitioner and eventually to give him the contract. His contention 
before the High Court was mainly that Respondent No. 2--Sbri 
Guizar-had been preferred over the Petitioner by practising discrimi-
282 
FAS!H CHAUDHARY v. DOORDARSHAN 
283 
nation in the matter of selection of T. V. Serial even though the 
Petitioner had submitted his project on 7th May 1986 whilst Respon-
dent No. 2 had not. 
The High Court did not find substance in any of the contention.s 
raised by the Petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition. Against the 
order of the High Court of 13th July, 1988 dismissing the Writ Petition 
the Petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal u/a 136 of the 
Constitution. 
Dismissing the petition for Special leave, this Court, 
HELD: That Respondent No. 2-Gulzar had hy a letter dated the 
4th February, 1986 submitted the theme of the matter and Doordarshan 
had asked him to furnish further details to make the proposal complete 
and after the proposal was so made complete, the same alongwith others 
was placed for consideration before the Committee. Though the 
proposals might not have been considered strictly in accordance 
with the order of precedence yet they were considered fairly or 
reasonably. [28SC; 286F-G I 
That there was objectivity in tile actual consideration of the diffe-
rent proposals and that there was fairness in the decision and that no 
malice or ill-will coloured the decision-making process in the case. The 
Petitioner was not refused proper consideration because Respondent 2 
described the petitioner as one who is a "maverick", on the contrary 
the serial submitted by the Petitioner was neither found to be attractive 
nor interesting. 1287 A-BJ 
Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 267 
at pp. 268 and 269 Haii T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kera/a Financial 
Corporation, AIR 1988 SC l!i7 at p. 161, referred"to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Civil) No. 9814 of 1988. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 7. 1988 of the Delhi High 
G 
Court in C.W.P. No. 3423 of 1987. 
Govinda Mukhoty, R.N. Keswani, Irfan Ahmed and M. Safid 
for the Petitioner. 
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Sushma Suri, 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Ms. Indu Goswami, Pinaki Mishra and Ms. Bina Gupta for the 
A Respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.