Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) This writ petition was disposed of by our Order dated 1st of February, 1988; we was indicated therein that we will give our reasons shortly. This we do by this judgment.
(2.) The Writ Petition No. 107 of 1988 is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a practising advocate of the Bombay High Court. He approached this Court by means of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate order restraining the respondents, namely the Union of India, the Director General of Doordarshan, New Delhi, Blaze Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Govind Nehalani, being the producer from telecasting or screening the serial titled "Tamas" and to enforce petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution and declaring the screening or televising of "Tamas" as violative of Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
(3.) One Javed Ahmad Siddique filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay being Writ Petition No. 201 of 1988. The same came up before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay who while admitting the same on 21st of January, 1988 had granted stay of further telecasting of the said serial on T.V. till further orders. The respondents herein challenged the said order before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The two learned Judges, namely, Justice Lentin and Justice Mrs. Sujata Manohar saw the complete serial on 22nd of January, 1988 and vacated the stay by an order dated 23rd of January, 1988. The judgment is impugned in the special leave petition which is taken on board and is also disposed of by this common judgment. It may also be mentioned that four episodes of said serial have already been telecast.;