Thi ss s sffvdfbvdgb fdsaf

Df

Sdf some being not part of the association gave them a free hand to adhere to such
regulations.

Recently one Movie is released by Ravi Gopal Verma named “Romance and Crime” which is
in violating all guidelines of FORA and it has shown women including minor girls in
degrading condition and it is full of violent and obscene content to attract youth and make
money, later its telecast was curtailed by S.C.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

Being aggrieved by this, 2 petitions and a PIL was filed by : -
I. PIL by National Women Association, prominent non-governmental organisation
working for the betterment of the conditions of women in the country.

II. Writ petition by All Bindia Distributers Guild,an association formed by majority of the
movie distributers of the country.

III. Writ petition by Bindian School Parent Association praying the court to issue
guidelines prohibiting telecasting of adult/violent/disturbing content.

All three petition with similar issue so the Supreme Court has grouped the all three petitions
to be commonly heard in the Supreme Court, wherein petitioners of all three petitions will be
joint petitioners on one hand, and the Central Government and Federation of OTT Platforms
(FOP) will be joint respondents.

¶ 1. It is humbly submitted that the Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article
321 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution as has been observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India2 amongst
the many others. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution.3 Also, while discharging the duties assigned to it this court, it has to play the role of
a sentinel on the qui vive and it must always regard it as its solemn duty to protect the said

1
Art. 32, the Constitution of India, 1950.
2
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
3
Darya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
fundamental rights zealously and vigilantly. 4 The constitution makers also conferred on the Supreme
Court the power to issue writs for the speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and made the right
to approach the Supreme Court for such enforcement itself a fundamental right. 5

¶ 2. The Pubic Interest Litigation [WP NO. 111/2020] and [WP NO.333/2020] is maintainable
in this Hon’ble court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution.6 The aforementioned PIL’s are filed because the OTT
platforms have abused the Article 19(1)(a) 7 of the constitution which confers on all citizens
the right to freedom of speech and expression. 8 Article 19(1)(a)9 of the Constitution is not an
absolute right and ‘reasonable restrictions’ may be imposed on the exercise of this right for
certain purposes as given under Article 19(2)10 of the constitution. It provides for curbing
the freedom of speech and expression if such expression is against the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality or in relation to Contempt of Court,

defamation or incitement to offence is the result thereof.11

¶ 3. The Federation of OTT platforms (FOP) have failed to ensure that OTT platforms do not
abuse the right to freedom of speech and expression. These platforms have been telecasting
content that is excessively violent, immoral, obscene and are unacceptably degrading to
women. The implication evident here is that anything that disturbs public peace/ tranquility

4
Prem Chand Garg v. Exercise Commissioner, U.P, 48 AIR 1963 SC 996.
5
M. Nagaraj And Others v. Union Of India And Other, W.P (civil) 61 of 2002 (S.C. Oct. 19, 2006).
6
S. P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1982 SC 149.
7
Art. 19(1)(a), the Constitution of India, 1950.
8
Naveen Jindal v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 510; Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72.
9
Supra 7.
10
Art. 19(2), the Constitution of India, 1950.
11
Ibid.
harms public order12 or is against public decency and morality 13 violates reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(2)14 of the constitution.

Ds

Sdv

Sd

Vsd

Sdv

Sdv

Dsv

Sd

Sdv

bdgn dbdgngn j kk k k kj lkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

12
Om Prakash v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 199.
13
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845.
14
Supra 10.