Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

A public-interest writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by a lawyer seeking a ban on the exhibition of the television serial “Tamas.” The petitioner alleged that the broadcast would offend public order and morality and could create public danger. After hearing detailed submissions, the Supreme Court chose to announce only its operative order at this stage, indicating that a fuller judgment would follow. The case record before the Court also included a special-leave petition (SLP) arising out of Appeal No. 96 of 1988 (W.P. No. 201 of 1988) decided by the Delhi High Court in Govind Nihalani v. Union of India & Others.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the continued exhibition of the television serial “Tamas” should be prohibited on the ground that it is likely to disturb public order, offend public morality, or lead to the commission of offences.
  2. Whether the facts disclosed a violation of any fundamental right justifying intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Govind Nihalani v. Union of India & Others (Appeal No. 96 of 1988) Views of the High Court indicating that the serial’s exhibition was not likely to disturb public order or lead to the commission of offences. The Supreme Court relied on these views, together with the Board of Censors’ assessment, to conclude that no ban was warranted.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court “dismissed” the petition after a brief but explicit evaluation:

  • It considered the certification and assessment provided by the Board of Censors, which found no threat to public order.
  • It took into account the reasoning of two Delhi High Court judges in the associated appeal, concurring that the serial’s broadcast was unlikely to incite disorder or facilitate any offence.
  • Observing that neither public order nor any fundamental right was affected, the Court held that the stringent standard for invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 was unmet.
  • Accordingly, it found the petition “not a fit case for interference.”

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — Both the Article 32 writ petition and the connected special-leave petition were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the television serial “Tamas” may continue to be exhibited. The Court set no new precedent; rather, it reaffirmed that Article 32 jurisdiction will not be invoked absent a demonstrable violation of fundamental rights or a tangible threat to public order.

    Ramesh v. Union Of India

    Order

    This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a lawyer in public interest seeking to ban the exhibition of T.V serial “Tamas”, on the ground that it offends or is likely to offend public order and public morality and create public danger. Detailed arguments have been advanced before us. We propose to consider the detailed arguments in a judgment which will be delivered shortly. We state, however, our conclusion and pass the following order:

    We dismiss this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution because we are satisfied on the evidence of the Board of Censors as well as the views expressed by the two learned Judges of the High Court in Appeal No. 96 of 1988 arising out of WP No. 201 of 1988 entitled Govind Nihalani v. Union of India and Others which is also before us in the special leave petition, that the effect is not likely to affect order or in the commission of any offence. We dismiss the special leave petition. We are also of the opinion, having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this case is not a fit case for interference under Article 32 of the Constitution. It does not affect any fundamental right or likely to affect any fundamental rights. No order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ramesh v. Union Of India
    (Feb 1, 1988)