CASE ANALYSIS OF

CHANDRA KUMARI V. POLICE COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD

BY
SRISHTI VERMA
INTERN
3rdYEAR,
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL,
PUNE
Mob-8527562301
Email-17010125051@symlaw.ac.in

26th APRIL 2020

1
 CHANDRA KUMARI CASE AND IT’S IMPACT ON THE INDIAN SOCIETY

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

A Public Interest Litigation case known as Chandra Rajkumari v. Commissioner of Police
Hyderabad1, was instituted by a group of women organizations to condemn and oppose the
proposed holding of a beauty competition ‘Miss Andhra Personality’ by one such woman
organization. The petitioners were the following women associations - A. P. Mahila Samakhya,
All India Mahila Samskrithika Sangam (AIMSS), Progressive Organization for Women (POW),
and one Maharaja Sir Kishen Pershad Foundation. The government of Andhra Pradesh, Police
Commissioner and Prerana Women Organization constituted the respondents.

FACTS IN ISSUE
A written petition was filed by applicants in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking the court to declare beauty pageants as immoral and unconstitutional. Along
with these constitutional and basic rights being violated, the group of petitioners also sought to
prohibit the respondents from undertaking and indulging in advertisements or any other forms of
service to organize a beauty contest as they were allegedly involved in unethical tactics and
illegal activities to mint money which do not come under the ambit of welfare activities for the
nation’s women especially when it is not certified and not recognized in the industry as a
distinguished or esteemed competition to partake in.

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
a. A beauty pageant amounts to immoral representation of women under the Indecent
Representation of Women Act 1986.
b. A beauty pageant in any form is unconstitutional as it is not included within the spirit of
Article 21, Article 14 and Article 51A(e) of the Indian Constitution.
c. The basis of beauty pageant is not in consonance with the international conventions and
United Nations resolutions on women.
d. Beauty pageants outrages the modesty of a woman and hence should be punishable under
section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

1
Chandra Rajkumari v. Commissioner of Police Hyderabad, AIR 1998 AP 302

2
e. Beauty contests are not a fundamental right guaranteed under Chapter III of the Indian
Constitution.

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT
a. Beauty Pageants are carried out with full dignity and care hence conform to all international
and constitutional norms.
b. Beauty competitions do not represent or depict women in a vulgar form instead merely create
avenues to represent themselves and make a career in the entertainment industry.
c. Prohibition of such beauty contests is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (a) and (g) of
Constitution of India.
d. There is no specific legislation prohibiting beauty contests in any form.

PUBLIC INTEREST ESSENCE

It was observed by the Honorable High Court that the present matter at hand was of the concern
of the general public at large and the community’s interest, even when the subject in question
was limited to the women of the nation, a certain section of the society. The learned single judge
referred to the case of ABL2 with reference to the locus standi contention for the maintainability
aspect, as even the personal allegations regarding one of the respondents formed an avenue for
the women to voice their concerns and stand up for their right against commercialization and
exploitation. In the ABL case, Supreme Court deviated from the routine practice and reflected
that such a matter needs the engagement of the Apex court even when it has become an academic
argument as the debate itself ceased to continue with the contest happening at the backdrop of
protest going on in the city. The matter of the constitutional validity of beauty pageants, in the
precedent of ABL, an international event versus the agitation of few activists was dealt in the
case of Mahila Jagran Manch, Bangalore vs State of Karnataka And Others 3 as well, where the
single judge disposed off the case. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners appealed to the
division bench which disposed the appeal along with specific instructions for the organizers and
the government. Aggrieved by the orders, the respondents filed a case in the Honorable Supreme
Court of India, where, quite controversially, the bench weighed the seriousness of the issue on
the basis of rights of the parties i.e. the organizers and the activists. Supreme Court once again
2
Amitabh Corporation Limited v. Mahila Jagrn Manch and others, (1997) 7 SCC 91
3
Mahila Jagran Manch, Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka And Others, 1999 (4) KarLJ 295

3
held to its view that the judiciary does not have the jurisdiction to deal with such cases as long as
no law is violated, even when the society is divided on two views about the decency of such
contests. Raising the question whether anticipation of the outcome of such directions of the court
and the impact of the agitators really cast weight on the ‘judicial assessment’ of the subject
matter. The Apex court made it a point to clear that the High courts of India are not supposed to
deal with such issues under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It was of the opinion of the
court that the lawful jurisdiction will be with the concerned authorities and not the courts which
is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. The court was steered in the way of
looking at the various stakeholders in conducting such a competition. These were the
participants, the organizers, the government as part of the International Tourism mechanism, the
media and press such as Doordarshan and All India Radios for transmission as entertainment
agencies.

JURISPRUDENCE& JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT

Ironically, the legal part of the ABL case was not brought to light in the Supreme Court. What
draws attention is that the beauty show proposed to be held by the respondents were questioned
in the manner in which they were to be held and were tested on the facts and circumstances of
the case leaving the questions of law vis-à-vis human rights and constitution, in the dark. The
Supreme court remained silent on the issue of ‘Whether beauty contests in any form violate any
laws or are prohibited under The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986,
keeping in mind that supreme court focuses on law and not fact then why did the court pass its
judgment based on the facts, thereby impacting any further litigation by probably setting a wrong
precedent ?

The High Court dwelled into the concept of beauty and its standing in the present society from
its origin in the dharmic shastras of “mounting beauty into one of the three forms of God viz.
(Sathyam (truth), Shivam (good) and Sundaram (beauty)”. The learned advocate representing
one of the parties brought it to the eyes of the court that beauty is something that cannot be
defined and abundant literature on the same draws a bottom line that ‘Beauty is in the eyes of the
Beholder’. The court in its power has to bring the task of defining beauty for the purpose of
setting precedents and legal answers by scrutinizing the word under the ambit of its judicial

4
notice. After a detailed probe into several dictionaries for the proper definition of beauty, the
Andhra Pradesh High Court came to summarize that the ‘Beauty Cult” is the brilliance of the
total expression of a human being appealing to the senses of other people. The court also
observed that this was, comparatively, used more for females than men, who are rather called
‘handsome’ than beautiful. The court further went to venture and examine the meaning of a
‘beauty contest’ and ‘beauty queen’ to gain a deeper understanding to decide on the task. The
judge along with the above mentioned multi-dimensional pieces of the issue, took into
consideration the need and impact of such contest in the setting of an Indian society. He included
factors like manner, method, quality, process for selection of the jury and participants in picture,
for an accurate legal analysis.

The court agreed with advocate representing the petitioners as the lawyer was right in postulating
that the “dignity of woman is constitutionally protected and the beauty contests when derogate or
trample the same should be prevented and prohibited”. The same argument was supplemented by
precedents of Surya v. Union of India 4, Rural Litigation Kendra v. State of UP 5and Mehta v.
Union of India6, where in the absence of laws enacted by the States to enshrine the intendment of
the Constitution under Article 51a (e) , the courts have to the warriors of judicial activism by
enforcing of duties by mandamus or legal remedy by its judicial intervention in the state of state
passivism.
COMMERCIALIZATION & EXPLOITATTION
Any contest outraging the modesty of a woman by having dress norms that expose the body of a
woman were observed to not only be illegal but also indirectly or directly crushing the societal
and moral values of decency and dignity, by the court with the concept of modesty being
discussed in great details with reference to Section 345 IPC in the cases of State of Punjab v.
Major Singh7 and Major Singh Lachhman Singh v. State 8. The court did not step away from
acknowledging the fact that men can also be represented in an inappropriate way but the same
does not prevail in the society and is not often talked about. After due inspection, the court came
to a conclusion that, as long as a contest is within its limits to respect the modesty of its
4
Surya v. Union of India, AIR 1982
5
Rural Litigation Kendra v. State of UP, AIR 1987 SC 359
6
Mehata v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCC 471
7
State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63
8
Major Singh Lachhman Singh v. State AIR 1963 Pandh 443

5
participants and follow the rule of law, it remains valid. If such a contest offends the law and is
meant for sexual or commercial exploitation of its participants, it naturally and automatically
offends public morality and public opinion by not keeping in check its decency, dignity, modesty
and preservation of womanhood standards.

The test of obscenity was established in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra9,
and Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra 10, where the court held that a test
of obscenity must be of a general character. It is cardinal, that the test must also admit of a fair
and just application on a case to case basis with a demarcation line to suffice for adequately
distinguishing and telling the thin line of difference between what is objectionable and obscene
and what is not. The court in the present case, with the legal reasoning in the background, drew
a parallel between the representation of women across a diverse medium and platforms of
creative, literary and academic avenues like beauty pageants, live shows, speechec etc, and held
that no matter what is the nature of the medium , it must follow the rules of the obscenity test
laid down in the precedent of Ranjit Udeshi. The AP High Court also referred to Supreme
Court’s verdict on Bobby Art International v. Hoon 11establishing that the mere portrayal of
something unconventional like naked scenes in a film would not be considered to be obscene as
long as it is an integral part of the film and serves its purpose of cinematic element. The court
addressed the fact that the standards of obscenity differs from country to country and beauty
pageants, prime facie, could be illegal as they do not seem to serve a purpose and context.

It is not well denoted that conducting such contests comes under the ambit of any profession,
occupation, trade or business as written in Article 19 (a) of the Constitution, even assuming that
such contests may be a part of commercialization business by capitalists or business people. The
State can very well lay down reasonable restrictions in law in the interests of public order,
decency, morality, or defamation to an offence. Article 51a (e) in Part IVA of the Constitution
which imposes a duty on every citizen of the nation to renounce practices derogatory and
objectionable to the dignity of woman. 

9
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881
10
Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 (2) SC 1390
11
Bobby Art International v. Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1

6
 INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATED TO REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
Women rights are enshrined in the International Bill of Rights for Women (Convention on the
elimination of all forms of discrimination against women adopted in 1979 by the UN General
Assembly). The need for protection of women have also been duly recognized by the UNO
which accepted the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China.The same was
published by United Nations 1996 - item (J) - Woman and the media portraying woman
primarily as consumers and target girls including pornographic media expression. Such beauty
contests can violate the international accepted laws if they exceed the real purpose of the contest
and indulge in unfair practices and representation of women. The states which ratifies these
conventions are to be the guardians of Women Rights and are under a positive obligation to
suppress all traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women (Article 6 of the Part I of
the Convention of UNO) and take all appropriate measures to tackle the loopholes present in the
existing legal protection of the rights of women (Article 2 the Convention of UNO).

RELEVANT STATUTES TO COVER BEAUTY PAGEANTS AS AN OFFENCE

There is no specified piece of legislation to deal with the matter of beauty pageants exclusively
hence it will be taken care of under the following –
1. Indian Penal Code (Central Law)
2. The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Central Act).
IPC Sections 292, to 295, 354 etc., will take care of preventing and punishing the offenders
indulging in outraging the modesty of women and indecently representing them in certain forms
under the guise of entertainment. The court agreed to the contention that the preamble of the
IRW Act 1956 through its particular categories also includes platforms incidental and ancillary
to the given mediums like print media and in this case, would also broadly cover beauty pageants
as well, only when they indecently represent their womenparticipants. Such a violation will lead
the offender to be liable under Section 6 of the act, where first conviction with imprisonment
may extend to 2 years and with fine which may extend to Rupees 2000. In the event of second
or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than 6 months but which may
extend to 5 years but also with a fine not less than Rupees 10,000 which may extend to Rs. 1

7
lakh.  The respondents if proved to be in contravention with the above law will be punished
under Section 7 of the Act as it is a company.

JUDGMENT IN A GLANCE
1. The police authorities were held in-charge of granting, rejecting and issuing licenses for these
beauty competitions. The guidelines issues by the court included a specific time for serving
alcohol mandatory public venue with ending before 10 pm, providing registration certificate
with bona-fide credentials and most importantly the monitoring of the show by a panel of
dignitaries constituted by the deemed authority.
2. Any violation within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986, is totally prohibited by virtue of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.
3. Such violation punishable under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act both in regard to the offenders
and also the abettors who may directly or indirectly encourage, participate or aid in the
holding of such contests.
4. Indecent representation of women in beauty contests offends Article 14, 21 and 51a of the
Constitution of India and the international covenants accepted by the UNO in addition to
violation of human rights as is understood both under the Constitution and any law relating to
protection of human rights and punishable as per law in such cases.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

After considering the complex and over-lapping dimensions of the task , the court came to a
culmination that as long as the “beauty contest in any form is in its true sense of the term can be
neither obscene nor prohibited under any law as long as it is intended for the welfare of women
in all respects and it is intended only as a form of art and entertainment and in a way a sport to
select the winners on comparative merit, but if it indecently represents any woman by depicting
in any manner the figure of a woman, form, body or any part thereof in such a way so as to have
the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to or denigrating women or is likely to deprave,
corrupt or injure the public morality or morals within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, is illegal and unconstitutional.

8
Andhra Pradesh Objectional Performances (Prohibition) Act, 1956 and Rules relating to Places
of Public Entertainment in the City of Hyderabad, 1351 F framed under Section 21 of Hyderabad
City Police Act, 1348 F were also applied in the present case as the beauty pageant was being in
a particular place. Once beauty contests transgress the true intent as above and falls within the
definition of obscenity, they may even become an offence, if put into writing or expression in
any writing or possible form, thus becoming illegal to be permitted. With the fact in mind that
there was no particular legislation for such regulation of beauty contest at that time, the court
stipulated some certain guidelines to be followed by the government of India and the concerned
appropriate authorities till the time the parliament comes up with a law. The case was taken up
the court under Article 226 of the Constitution which is absolute but is not to be exercised
routinely. It was decided by the court that in this case, the police will be the absolute right
authority to deal with such beauty contests. The authority was also empowered to appeal before
High Court under Section 11 of the Objectionable Performances Act, 1956 before exhausting
Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court was successful in striking a balance between the conflicting interest of the parties to
the extent that it is made sure that the beauty contest is carried out in all fair means with the help
of court’s guidelines and recommended panel.

WAY FORWARD
Division Bench of the High Court Hyderabad heard an appeal in the year 1998which overturned
this judgement given by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, citing the reason that the single judge
did not have the jurisdiction and authority to give directions in the Writ Petition. Recently in the
case of Mrs Lakshmi Suresh v. Dr M Sekar 12personal vendetta was given the name of societal
benefit as the Madras High Court completely ignored the set precedent by prohibiting beauty
pageants organised in educational institutions. In today’s day and time, there is still no tailor-
made legislation which exists to protect the rights of participants, female or male, in the course
of a beauty pageant. With the ever- expanding scope of laws, if any law is made by the
parliament, the same will have to cater to a variety of areas exploring even the slightest
possibility of a human rights violation. One for example, could be the statutory age requirements

12
Mrs Lakshmi Suresh v. Dr M Sekar,(Writ Petition No. 21885/2013)

9
for participation in the new and trendy teen or child pageants or the uncharted realms of sexual
harassment at these contests. These conjectures call for the dire need of legislative attention by
the way of statutory regulation.

REFERENCES
●Chandra Rajkumari v. Commissioner of Police Hyderabad, AIR 1998 AP 302.
● Amitabh Corporation Limited v. Mahila Jagrn Manch and others, (1997) 7 SCC 91.
● Mahila Jagran Manch, Bangalore vs State Of Karnataka And Others, 1999 (4) KarLJ 295.
● State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63.
● Major Singh Lachhman Singh v. State AIR 1963 Pandh 443.
● Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881.
●Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 (2) SC 1390
● Bobby Art International v. Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1
●Surya v. Union of India, AIR 1982
●Rural Litigation Kendra v. State of UP, AIR 1987 SC 359
●Mehata v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCC 471
● Mrs Lakshmi Suresh v. Dr M Sekar,(Writ Petition No. 21885/2013)

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Srishti Verma is pursuing B.A.LLB (Hons) from Symbiosis Law School Pune. She is currently a
Junior Research and Internship Coordinator at ProBono India. She has participated in various
mooting activities and pursued courses of a variety on legal subjects. She has interned with
various government departments and Law Firms. Her areas of interests are Corporate, Media &
Entertainment, Competition Law, Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution. Her other
interests include cultural and adventure activities. She believes that a professional - personal life
balance is a must for a healthy, happy and productive individual.

10