Delhi High Court
All India Dhobi Mahasangh And Anr. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 7 September, 2012
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.09.2012
+ WP(C) No. 5610/2012
ALL INDIA DHOBI MAHASANGH AND ANR. ...... Appellants
Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Arpit Rai, Mr. Anshul Gupta and Mr. Aniket Aggarwal,
Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Jatan Singh and Mr. Tushar Singh, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
WP(C) 5610/2012 & CM No. ____/2012 (Stay)
1. This is a writ petition, whereby directions are sought against the
respondents, to intervene and restrain broadcast of the impugned TV
commercial, which pertains to a washing powder product. The impugned
commercial, according to the petitioners is intended to insult and humiliate the
Dhobi caste and the community, as a whole.
2. The petitioner no.1 claims to be a registered trust, which works for the
development of the Dhobi community. It is averred in the petition that, in the
NCT of Delhi, Dhobi has been declared a Scheduled Caste.
3. Petitioner no.2 claims to be the National President of petitioner no.1.
4. The petitioner no.2 claims that, on 23.08.2012 they viewed the
impugned TV commercial of a product known as Tide Washing Powder,
which used the expression "Chowk Gye Dhobi Master". The said expression,
according to the petitioners tends to insult and humiliate the Dhobi caste.
5. Petitioner no.2 has averred that, so incensed was he, that on behalf of
petitioner no.1 and on behalf of the entire community of which he claims to
be a representative, a complaint was lodged with the Police Station, in Model
Town, New Delhi under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 1989 Act). It is averred in
the said complaint that, the use of the aforementioned expression being
offensive, the offenders are liable to be prosecuted under Section 3(x) of the
1989 Act. In addition prosecution is also sought under the provisions of
section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). The complaint, is
admittedly, pending consideration.
6. Before me, based on the aforementioned brief facts, it was argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioners did not have an
objection to the usage of the word 'Dhobi' or, the expression referred to above,
the objection was to the manner, in which, it is said and depicted in the
impugned commercial.
6.1 In order to satisfy myself, as what was portrayed before me was correct,
I had the commercial played on an I-pad carried by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. After viewing the impugned commercial, I have no doubt in my
mind that it is neither derogatory nor defamatory or that, as contended,
intended to insult or even humiliate the Dhobi community as alleged or at all.
The commercial intends to convey that the traditional ways adopted to wash
clothes, linen etc. may not suffice and that products, such as the one referred
to in the impugned commercial, may achieve the desired result.
6.2 The test: as to whether the impugned commercial is insulting,
humiliating, derogatory or even defamatory, would have to be viewed from a
perspective of a reasonable and a prudent person and not from the point of
view of an overly sensitive person. Viewed from this standpoint, as indicated
above, I find nothing wrong with the impugned commercial.
7. Before I conclude, I must also express concern at a section of our
society which seems to have decided to do away with good humour and mirth
in their lives. Prickly and over sensitive approach of such like people not only
causes unnecessary discord in the society but also kills artistic freedom which
is so very necessary for a vibrant, plural, secular and democratic society, such
as ours.
8. In view of the afore-going observations, the writ petition being without
merit is dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
yg
