Anand Chintamani Dighe

v.
State of Maharashtra

[2002 (2) MhLj 14]

Group 5:
Sagar Dhawan (Roll no. 35)
Arpita Jaiswal (Roll no. 39)
Tanya Nanda (Roll no. 40)
Tanavi Mohanty (Roll no. 44)
Karishma Negi (Roll no. 46)
LAYOUT
1. Laws Involved

2. Facts & Procedural History

3. Decision

4. Reasoning of Court

5. Analysis of Judgement

6. Impact
LAWS INVOLVED
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 S. 95 Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search warrants for the same.

 S. 96. Application to High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture.

 
 Constitution of India

 Articles 19(1)

 Art. 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain directions, orders or writs.

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 S. 153A. acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

 
 S. 295A. deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class
of  citizens of  India,
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 Play in 1988: "Mee Nathurarn Godse Boltoy”

 The Gujarati version approved by the Censor Board without any

deletion

 Authorisation by the Maharashtra Stage Performances Scrutiny

Board.

 Permission without the exclusion or deletion of any part thereof.

 Report (24th November 1997): nothing objectionable; permission
should be granted for staging the play in the "Universal Category",
meaning thereby that it was suitable for general viewing.

 On 15th May 2000, the petitioner was informed that the scripts of the
play in Marathi, Gujarati and all other languages had been forfeited
to the State Government by a notification dated 3rd December 1998.
GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE

1) Derogatory references towards Mahatma Gandhi and certain

communities; likely to disturb the public tranquility, promote
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will among the
different groups or communities;

2) The reading shows deliberate and malicious intention to outrage

the feelings of the persons who follow and believe in the teachings
of Mahatma Gandhi;
DECISION

 The notification does not fulfill the mandatory requirement. Mere

reference to the statutory provisions not sufficient; ultra vires and
illegal.

 Writ Petition allowed.

REASONING OF THE COURT
 Power to forfeit a drastic power; serious consequences in
terms of due exercise of the fundamental right of the
freedom of speech and expression .

 Cardinal Values of a Democracy:

 Tolerance of a diversity of viewpoints
 Acceptance of the freedom of those whose thinking
may not accord with the mainstream.

 Popular perceptions cannot override values which the

constitution embodies as guarantees of freedom in what
was always intended to be a free society.
ANALYSIS
1. Drastic power on the state government by virtue of
Section 95 of CrPC.

2. Scope of judicial review: Section 96 of CrPC.

3. The effect of both sections put together: deterrent to our

fundamental right of expression if not exercised fairly.

4. The State government had not mentioned the “grounds”

for forfeiture of the scripts of the play in the notification as
required under Section 95 of CrPC
5. Such action by the state government is violative of the
fundamental right of expression and against the tenets of
the Constitution of India.

Cases referred:

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav

AIR 1917 SC 202

2. Narayan Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh

1972 CrLJ 1323
IMPACT: Throttling ‘Art’?
 "Have cried at our helplessness in not making people understand
that this art needs to be seen not banned!“

 Ban on movies ( Fire, Deshdrohi, Firaaq, Aarakshan)

 Many not screened due to ‘unofficial/virtual ban’

 All movies cleared by Censor Board

 M F Hussain’s paintings

 Is there a please-all film/play ever?

Sensitive Government, are we?

 ‘apprehension’ of unrest and there is a ban

 Go by the mass opinion

 Silence the dissenting voices/ the mavericks.

 Democracy of the patriarchal few.  

Intention v Practice:

 Section 95 – balance the freedom under Article 19 and

maintain control in the state

 Rigid adherence to the words in the Section-needed

 Government should NOT act on its hypersensitivity.

 A society wedded to the rule of law, cannot trample upon
the rights of those who assert views which may be regarded
as unpopular or contrary to the views shared by a majority.
Questions??