LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus PROF. MANUBHAI D. SHAH ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--r
-
LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
PROF. MANUBHAI D. SHAH ETC. ETC.
JULY 22, 1992
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950: Part Ill-Fundamental Rights-Article
19(1)(a) & 19(2).
A
B
Freedom of Speech and Expression-Scope of-lncludes freedom to C
I
circulate and propagate views through electronics media subject to reasonable
restrictions-R.ight extends to use the media to answer the criticism levelled
against the propagated view.
Publication of a research paper by Executive Trustee of Consumt{r
Education and Research Centre-l'aper criticising premium policy adopted by D
Life Insurance Corporation-Counter prepared by a membe" of LIC as well
as rejoinder prepared by Executive Trustee Published in a newspaper-L1C
also publishing its counter in its own magazine-Refusal to publish Executive
Trustee's rejoinder in its magazine on the ground that it was In - House
magazine-Held refusal by LIC to publish rejoinder in its magazine was E
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(a).
Freedom of expression through movies-Film-Right to telecast on
television-Guidelines for film certificatiott-Documentary film on Bhop~l
Gas Disaster-Film awarded national award and granted 'U' Certifi-
cate-Refusal by Doordarshan to telecast the film-Held film maker has a
F
right to telecast the film-Refusal to telecast should be justified by law under
Article 19(2)--0nus lies on the party who refuses to telecast to show that the
film does not confonn to requirements of law--Grounds of refusal held not
justified-Doordarshan being State controlled agency cannot refuse telecast of
film except on valid grounds.
G
Article 12-State--Life Insurance Corporation is State.
Constitution-Interpretation of-Provisions should be construed broad-
ly unless the context otherwise requires-Scope of provisions, particularly
Fumlamental Rights should not be cut down by restricted approach.
H
595
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992)3 S.C.R.
A
Doctrine of Fairness.
Doctrine of Prior Restraint.
Cinematograph Act, 1952: Sections SA-SB.
B
The respondent, the executive trustee of the Consumer Education &
Research Centre Ahmedabad, after undertaking research into the working
of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)published and circulated a study
paper titled "A fraud on policy holders-a shocking story" portraying the
discriminatory practice adopted by the LIC which adversely affected the
C interest of a large number of policy holders. The underlying idea was to
point out that unduly high premiums were charged by the LIC from those
taking out life insurance policies thereby denying access to insurance
coverage to a vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay the high
premiums. A member of the LIC prepared a counter to the respondent's
study paper and published tbe same as an article titled 'LIC and its policy
D holders' in the "Hindu", a daily newspaper, challenging the conclusions
reached by the respondent in his study paper. The respondent prepared a
rejoinder 'Raw deal for Policy Holders' which too was published in the
same newspaper.
E
Thereafter, the LIC published its member's article which was in the
nature of a counter to the respondent's study paper in its magazine
'Yogakshema'. On the respondent learning about the same, he requested
that in fairness his rejoinder which was already published in the Hindu
should also be published in the said magazine to present a complete
picture to the reader. The LIC refused his request on the ground that their
F
magazine was an in-house magazine circulated amongst subscribers who
were policy holders, officers, employees and agents of the Corporation and
it is not put up in the market for sale to the general public.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court which
came to the conclusion that the LIC's stand that the magazine was an
G in-house magazine was untenable because it was available to anyone on
payment of subscription; and it invited articles for publication therein
from members of the public. Assuming that the magazine was an in-house
magazine the corporation, which was a State within the meaning of Article
12, cannot under the guise of publication of an in-house magazine violate
H the fundamental right of the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held
' r
-
~-(
-
L.I.C. v. PROF. SHAH
597
that refusal by LIC to publish respondent's rejoinder was arbitrary and A
violative oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.