Dhiraj Kumar Bharadwaj vs News Boradcasting Standard ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4978 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision: 29.10.2013
+                 W.P.(C) 3087/2012
DHIRAJ KUMAR 'BHARADWAJ'                       ..... Petitioner
             Through: None.
                        versus
NEWS BORADCASTING STANDARD
AUTHORITY AND ANR                           ..... Respondents
              Through: Mr. Apurv Chandola, Adv. for R-1.
                         Mr. Kapil Kher, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
                             JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved from telecast of an ad film titled "Third Eye of Nirmal Baba". In the aforesaid film, according to the petitioner, Nirmal Baba advises his devotees to eat Samosa or Red Chatni or patties, to remove photos of ancestors from the place of worship. According to the petitioner, on seeing the film his family members and various other members of the public started eating the materials suggested by Nirmal Baba. It is further alleged in the petition that in many advertisements Nirmal Baba suggests the member of public to remove Shivlingas from their house as well as pictures from the place of worship and after seeing that advertisement his family members became superstitious and were willing to remove the Shivlinga from the house and photos of the ancestors from the place of worship. The petitioner is accordingly seeking the following reliefs in this writ petition:

"a. Pass an order thereby directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to stop above said advt. films with immediate effect to save the spirituality and cultural of the petitioner;

b. Pass an order thereby directing the respondent No. to prepare TRP rating lists excluding the advt. film namely "THIRD EYE OF NIRMAL BABA" or to include all the advertisement films in the list of TRP rating chart;

c. Pass an order thereby imposing the heavy penalty upon the respondent No. 3 for intentionally including the advt. film of "THIRD EYE OF NIRMAL BABA" while preparing the TRP rating charge;

d. Pass an order thereby awarding cost of litigation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents;

e. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the said respondent is not a TRP rating agency and has no control over respondent No.3 which is a TRP rating agency. He further states that respondent No.1 is a regulatory mechanism set up by News Broadcasters Association to lay down and enforce the broadcasting standards, and only those broadcasting companies that are members of the News Broadcasters Association are amenable to its discipline.

3. The writ petition does not disclose the name of any particular news channel telecasting the aforesaid ad film nor has any TV channel been made a party to this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved from any news channel, which is a member of respondent No.1, on account of telecast of the above-referred ad film the remedy available to

him is to approach first the channel concerned and if dissatisfied, then respondent No.1 with a complaint against such a channel. In the absence of any such complaint it will not be possible for respondent No.1 to take any action against any of its members on account of the telecast of the above-referred ad film.

4. As far as respondent No.2 is concerned the writ petition does not disclose, in what manner and under which authority of law the said respondent can prevent the telecast of ad film in question. In any case, no direction to respondent No.1 can be issued, unless the channel broadcasting the impugned programme/advertisement is made a party to the writ petition.

5. As regards the third respondent which is a TRP rating agency, I am in agreement with its counsel that its function is to award TRP ratings on the basis of the actual telecast and it has no control as to the contents which are telecast on a TV or News channel. I also agree that, it is for the channel concerned and not to for them to decide, whether a particular programme is to be treated as a programme or an advertisement. They are concerned only with the viewership of the channel, and their rating is based accordingly.

6. For the reasons hereinabove, no relief against any of the respondents can be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

OCTOBER 29, 2013                                           V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh