- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State o karnataka, none appearing on behalf of Respondent I, the original petitioner. A letter petition was filed by Respondent I-Society, purporting to be in public interest seeking certain directions in relation to the "m/s world-1996" contest arranged at Bangalore. The directions were to restrain the appellant herein from holding the contest anywhere in India including, bangalore, to restrain the Ministry of External Affairs from issuing visas to the contestants, etc. , to restrain the State of Karnataka and its Department from extending any facility or cooperation for holding the Beauty Pageani recover charges for the use of the Press Conference Hall at Vidhan Soudhfrom the appellant and the State be ordered to tender an apology for announcing the event from Vidhan Soudha, etc. , etc. The petition came up a for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High court. The learned single Judge by a detailed and well-reasoned judgment dated 13/9/1996 came to the conclusion that the petition was misconceived and the allegations on the basis of which it was founded were preposterous and that the Beauty Pageant to be held at Bangalore would not be offensive to our sense of morality and decency; nor could it be deemed as obscene in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge also held that no group of individuals can, while fighting for their so-called rights and freedoms, howsoever noble or just their cause may be, trample the rights and freedom of others. In his view while it may be perfectly legal for a group of activists to agitate for the rights and freedom of any section of the citizenry, such agitation cannot be extended to prevent other S. of citizenry or group of individuals from exercising their rights and freedoms. Briefly put, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the appellants were entitled to hold the Beauty Pageant in the form of "miss World-1996" contest and it would not be proper for the court to interfere at the behest of one group to deny the right to hold such a pageant to the other group. The learned Judge also criticised the activists for indulging in violence and threatening self-immolation, etc.
(3.) After the petition was dismissed, the matter was carried by way of an appeal to the division bench of the High court. The division bench of the high court while issuing notice observed that from the facts stated and the averments made, it transpired that the holding of the Pageant had created serious problems regarding maintenance of law and order requiring minimum remedial measures. The organisers, protagonists and the opponents of the Pageant, said the Division bench, had created circumstances which required issuance of interim directions. It also took note of the notice of the submission by the appellants before it that the State was interested in the organisers of the Pageant. The Division bench then proceeded to direct that the State government and its functionaries shall refrain from taking any steps to assist the organisers of the Pageant, except to secure law and order and to provide such maintenance as is legally permissible on payment of the requisite amount. The police security shall be provided only from the State Police Force and the government shall not requisition for deployment any other force except with the permission of the court. No amount shall be spent by the State government in connection with the holding of the Pageant. The appellant before us. Respondent 2 before the division bench, was granted liberty to organise the show as a commercial activity at his own costs, risk and responsibility, subject to the result of the appeal or such orders as it may from time to time pass and direct the appellant herein to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as security of costs.;