text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made . . " And held that it would be an error to think: " . . that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision... |
In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice. Ratio |
It would, however, be appropriate for the statutory authority, if 203 it proposes to initiate action afresh, to classify the grounds pointing out which grounds, in its opinion, support the allegation of fraud or misre presentation and which, in its view constitute subsequent violations of the terms and conditions of th... |
The grounds must be specific so as to afford the Lessees an effective opportunity of showing cause. Ratio |
On the point of denial of natural justice, we agree with conclusion of the High Court, though not for the same reasons, that there has been such a denial in the proceed ings culminating in the order of cancellation. Ratio |
The show cause notice itself an impalpable congeries of suspicions and fears, of relevant or irrelevant matter and has included some trivia. Ratio |
On a matter of such importance where the stakes are heavy for the Lessees who claim to have made large investments on the project and where a number of grounds require the determination of factual matters of some com plexity, the statutory authority should, in the facts of this case, have afforded a personal heating to... |
We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the High Court that both the show cause notice dated 9 1.1986 and the subsequent order dated 19.4 1986 would require to be quashed, however, leaving it open to the statutory authori ty, should it consider it necessary, to issue a fresh show cause notice setting out the precis... |
The appeal of the Lucknow Development Authority arising out of SLP 11220 of 1987 is partly allowed and the order of the High Court in WP 3463l 1986 modified accordingly. RPC |
Appeals arising out of SLPs 11515 of 1987 and 11499 of 1987 of the LDA directed against the common judgment of the High Court in so far as it relates to WP 5699 of 1985 and WP 5521 of 1985 also disposed of in the light of the order is made in the appeals arising out of SLPs 4761, 4762, 13298, 11498 and 11220 of 1987. R... |
In the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear and pay their own costs. RPC |
P.S.S. Appeals allowed partly. RPC |
vil Appeal Nos. 1668 and 1669 of 1988. FAC |
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.1988 of the Madras High Court in W.R. Nos. 469 and 488 of 1988. FAC |
Soli J. Sorabjee, V.C. Mahajan, C.A. Sundaram, U.A. Rana, M. Mudgal, Ms. Indu Malhotra, C.V. Subba Rao, A. Mariar Autham, Aruna Matbur, N.N. Sharma, Jose Varghese, Bhagwan Das, R. Mohan, R.A. Perumal and A.V. Rangam for the appearing parties. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. FAC |
These appeals by leave are from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court revoking the 'U Certificate ' issued to a Tamil film called "Ore Oru Gramathile" (In one Village) for public exhibition. FAC |
Civil Appeal Nos.1668 and 1669 of 1988 are by the producer of the film and the Civil Appeal nos.13667 and 133668 of 1988 are by the Union of India. FAC |
He apprehends that she would not be able to get admission to college because she belongs to a Brahmin community. FAC |
He seeks advice from his close friend Devashayam, a Tehsildar. FAC |
The Tehsildar who otherwise belongs to a very poor family and whose father was working in a local Church responds with gratitude. FAC |
He divises a method to help Gayathri because it was through Sastry 's father that he got proper education and rose to become a Tahsildar. FAC |
He prepares a false certificate showing Gayathri as Karuppayee belonging to an Adi Dravida Community and as an orphan. FAC |
He issues the certificate under the reservation policy of the Government for the benefit of 'backward commu nities ' identified on caste consideration. FAC |
On the basis of the false certificate, Karuppayee gets admitted to college and enters I.A.S. witness to this arrangement is the brother in law of Tahsildar called Anthony who later turns out to be a villain of the piece. FAC |
"Years later, Karuppayee, who was working in Delhi is sent to a rural village called Annavayil as a Special Offi cer for flood relief operations. FAC |
Her father, Shankara Sastry happens to work in the same village as Block Development Officer. FAC |
However, both of them pretend not to recognise each other. FAC |
Karuppayee takes her work seriously and improves the living conditions of people to such an extent that she is held by them in high esteem. FAC |
By a coincidence, after the death of the Tahsildar, Anthony comes to live in the same village and recognises Karuppayee. FAC |
He starts blackmailing her and threatens to reveal the fraudulent means by which she got the caste certificate. FAC |
His attempt is to extract money from her frequently. FAC |
One evening when he visits Karup payee 's house, he is confronted by Shankara Sastry who puts a halt to his blackmailing. FAC |
Later Anthony dies of sudden heart attack but not before he informs the Government about the facts relating to Karuppayee. FAC |
Upon preliminary enquiry, the Government suspends both Karuppayee and her father and eventually they are put on trial in the Court. FAC |
The people of the village resentful of the action taken against Karuppayee rise as one man and demonstrate before the Court in a peace ful manner for her release. FAC |
They also send petitions to the Government." FAC |
"Karuppayee and her father admit in the Court the fact of their having obtained the false caste certificate but they attribute it to circumstances resulting by Government reservation policy on caste basis. FAC |
They say that they are prepared to undergo any punishment. FAC |
They contend hat some politicians are exploiting the caste consideration and that would be detrimental to national integration. FAC |
They also argue that the reservation policy should not be based on caste, but could be on economic backwardness. FAC |
Just about the time when the judgment is to be pronounced the Court re ceives intimation from Government that in the light of petitions received from the public, the case against Karup payee and her father stands withdrawn. FAC |
Karuppayee goes back to her Government job with jubilent people all round. FAC |
" 210 This is the theme of the picture presented. FAC |
As usual, it contains some songs, dance and side attractions to make the film more delectable. FAC |
On August 7, 1987, the producer applied for certificate for exhibition of the film. FAC |
The examining committee upon seeing the film unanimously refused to grant certificate. FAC |
The appellant then sought for review by a Revising Committee which consisted of nine members. FAC |
This Committee reviewed the film. FAC |
Eight members were in favour of grant of certificate and one was opposed to it. FAC |
The Chairman of the Censor Board however, referred the film to Second Revising Committee for review and recommendation. FAC |
The 'U ' certificate means for unrestricted public exhibition as against 'A ' certificate restricted to adults only. FAC |
The minority expressed the view that the film is treated in an irresponsible manner. FAC |
The reservation policy of the Govern ment is projected in a highly biased and distorted fashion. FAC |
They have also stated that the so called appeal in the film "India is One" is a hollow appeal, which in effect touches caste sensitivity of the Brahmin forward caste. FAC |
One of the members felt that the impact of the film will create law and order problem. FAC |
Another member said that the film will hurt the feelings and sentiments of certain sections of the public. FAC |
But the majority opined that the theme of the film is on the reservation policy of the Government suggesting that the reservation could be made on the basis of economic backwardness. FAC |
Such a view could be expressed in a free country like India, and it did not violate any guideline. FAC |
On December 7, 1987, 'U ' certificate was granted for the exhibition of the film which was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions. FAC |
The writ petitions were dismissed by the Single judge, but the Division Bench upon appeal allowed the writ petitions and revoked the certifi cate. FAC |
The producer of the film and the Government of India by obtaining leave have appealed to this Court. FAC |
The film has since been given National Award by the Directorate of Film Festival of the Government of India. FAC |
In these appeals, the fundamental point made by Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned counsel for the producer is about the freedom of free expression guaranteed under our Constitution even for the medium of 211 movies. ARG |
The counsel argued that the opinion on the effect of the film should not be rested on isolated passages disre garding the main theme and its message. ARG |
The Film should be judged in its entirety from the point of its overall impact on the public. ARG |
The writings of the film must be considered in a free, fair and liberal spirit in the light of the freedom of expression guaranteed under our Constitution. ARG |
The counsel said that the Court is not concerned with the cor rectness or legality of the views expressed in the film and the Court cannot limit the expression on any general issue even if it is controversial. ARG |
Mr. Mahajan for the Union of India supported these submissions. ARG |
Mr. Varghese learned counsel for the contesting respondents did not dispute most of the proposition advanced for the appellants. ARG |
He was, however, critical about the manner in which the reservation policy of the Government has been condemned and the events and characters shown in the film. ARG |
He contended that they are depicted in a biased manner and reaction to the film in Tamil Nadu is bound to be volatile. ARG |
Before examining these rival contentions, a few general observations may be made as to the utility of movies and the object of the film Censors Board. Ratio |
The motion pictures were originally considered as a form of amusement to be allowed to titillate but not to arouse. Ratio |
They were treated as mere entertainment and not an art or a means of expression. Ratio |
This theory was based on the concept that motion picture was a business "pure and simpe originated and conducted for prof it, like other spectacles. Ratio |
" It was considered strictly as an "amusement industry". Ratio |
It was not without significance since there were no talking pictures then. PRE |
The talking pictures were first produced in 1926, eleven years after the Mutual decision (Encyclopedia Britinnica) (1965 Vol. Ratio |
15 p. 902). Ratio |
The later decisions of the American Supreme Court have therefore declared that expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First Amend ment. Ratio |
(See Burstyn vs Wilso, ; The First Amend ment to the U.S. Constitution provides: "Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This Amendment is absolute in terms and it contains no exception for the exercise of the fight. Ratio |
Heavy burden lies on the State to justify the interference. Ratio |
The judicial decisions, however, limited the scope of restriction which the State could impose in any given circumstances. Ratio |
The danger rule was born in Schenek vs United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). PRE |
Justice Holmes for a unanimous court, evolved the test of "clear and present danger". Ratio |
He used the danger test to 212 determine where discussion ends and incitement or attempt begins. Ratio |
The core of his position was that the First Amend ment protects only utterances that seeks acceptance via the democratic process of discussion and agreement. Ratio |
But "Words that may have all the effect of force" calculated to achieve its goal by circumventing the democratic process are however, not so protected. Ratio |
The framework of our Constitution differs from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratio |
Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. STA |
The freedom of expression means the right to express one 's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner. Ratio |
It would thus include the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion. Ratio |
The communication of ideas could be made through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie. Ratio |
But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds set out under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Ratio |
The reason able limitations can be put in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, deceny or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Ratio |
The Framers deemed it essential to permit imposition of reasonable restrictions on the larger interests of the community and country. Ratio |
They intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interest specified under Article 19(2). Ratio |
(See Santokh Singh vs Delhi Administration, ; This is the difference between the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitu tion. Ratio |
The decisions bearing on the First Amendment are, therefore, not useful to us except the broad principles and the purpose of the guaranty. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.