ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. versus LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 19-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ODYSSEY COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
LOKVIDAYAN SANGHATANA & ORS. 
JULY 19, 1988 
IE.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)-Right 
of citizen to exhibit films on T. V.-Subject to compliance of conditions 
imposed by Doordarshan-Can be curtailed only under Art. 19(2). 
C 
Article 226-Public interest Petition against exhibition of a TV 
serial-A/legi<Jg that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs and 
superstitions among people-Violation of any statutory or contractual 
right not alleged-Whether High Court was justified in issuing interim 
injunction order? 
D 
The T. V. Serial 'Honi-Anhoni' was being telecast by Doordar-
shan on every Thursday between 9.00 P.M. and 9.30 P.M. 
A writ petition was tiled by the Respondents stating that the 
telecast was not in public interest as it had the effect of confirming blind 
faiths, superstitious beliefs in stories of ghosts, rebirth, precognition 
E etc. and of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind beliefs. 
The High Court issued an interim order of injunction not to telecast and 
show episodes 12 and 13 of the serial. 
Aggrieved by the interim order, the appellant, producer of the 
said serial, had come on appeal by special leave. This Court, while 
F 
granting special leave stayed the operation of the interim order passed 
by the High Court. 
The appellant contended that the said serial and in particular 
episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the 
contrary criticised and condemned superstition and blind faith, and at 
G 
the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific 
explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein and consi-
dered by people as supernatural phenomenon. It was also submitted that 
the viewers were told that they should search for scientific reason 
whenever any unusual occurrence takes place. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, 
486 
' 
I 
~ 
ODYSSEY COMN. v. L. SANGHATANA 
487 
HELD: I. Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is 
always very zealously guarded by this Court. It can no longer be dis· 
puted that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan 
subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is 
a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed 
under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India which can be 
curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause (2) of 
Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The right is similar to the right 
of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as news· 
paper, magazines, advertisement hoardings etc. subject to the terms 
and conditions of the owners of the media. [491B; 490C-E] 
2. The High Court was in error in the present case in issuing the 
interim order of injunction which is set aside. [492B] 
3.1 The objection to the exhibition of the film was that it was 
likely to spread false or blind beliefs amongst the members of the 
public. The Respondents had not asserted any right conferred on them 
by any statute or acquired by them under a contract which entitled 
them to secure an order of temporary injunction. [491C-D] 
3.2 As alleged by the Respondents, if all the episodes in the serial 
were offensive they could have approached the High Court as early as 
possible within the first two or three weeks after the commencement of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the exhibition of the serial. But they waited till the exhibition of the 
E 
11th episode of the serial was over and then filed the petition. They 
had not produced any material apart from their own statements to 
show that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the 
community. [491E-G] 
3.3 The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order of in-
F 
terim injunction in this case could infringe a fundamental right of the 
producer of the serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence of 
grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally by 
the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an order of 
temporary injunction. The exhibition of the serial in question was not 
likely to endanger public morality. In the circumstances of the case the G 
balance of convenience lay in favour of the rejection of the prayer for 
interim injunction. [491G-H; 492A] 
[This Court reserved its opinion on the question whether a citizen 
has a fundamental right to establish a private broadcasting 

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