Vinod Kumar Kanojia v. UOI and Ors

MANMOHAN, J vk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : 22nd September, 2010 + VINOD KUMAR KANOJIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhatia, Adv. versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. A.S Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Kanojia, has preferred this public interest litigation on behalf of the Hindustan Kanojia Organization (a community of "Dhobis", scheduled caste in India) after coming to know from a news item published in "Amar Ujala" Dehradun Hindi newspaper on 20th July, 2010 that a film in the name of "Dhobi Ghat" is going to be released in December, 2010 and the name of the film has affected the sensitivity and created a dent in the feeling of the community. 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the long history of the depressed and also reproduced the storyline in the writ petition to highlight the contention that the said storyline has nothing to do with the "dhobi ghat" and further the use of the word "dhobi" is an insult to the Scheduled Caste and has affected the feelings of the persons belonging to the said particular caste. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the movie as "Dhobi Ghat" violates Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the 1989 Act"). The learned counsel has also commended us to the decision in Swaran Singh and others v. State and another, (2008) 8 SCC 435. He has placed heavy reliance on paragraphs 14 and 27 and for the sake completeness, we reproduce the said paragraphs:- "14. Before the coming of the British into India, the chamar were a stable socio-economic group who were engated in manufacturing leather goods by handicraft. As is well known, feudal society was characterized by the feudal occupation division of labour in society. In other words, every vocation or occupation in India became a caste e.g. dhobi (washerman), badhai (carpenter), lohar (blacksmith), Kumbhar (potter), etc. The same was the position in other countries also during feudal times. Thus, even now many Britishers have the surnames Baker, Butcher, Taylor, Smith, Carpenter, Gardener, Mason, Turner, etc. which shows that their ancestors belonged to their professions. 27. Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act was not committed in a public place and hence does not come within the purview of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In this connection it may be noted that the aforesaid provision does not use the expression "public place", but instead the expression used is "in any place within public view". In our opinion there is a clear distinction between the two expressions." On a reading of the provision contained in the 1989 Act and the decision referred to in Swaran Singh and others (supra), we really fail to fathom how the provisions of the Act and the said decision are applicable to the case at hand. In Swaran Singh and others (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the offences committed under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act against various castes and further what is the difference between "public place" and "in any place within public view". It has nothing to do with the name of a movie which can be christened as "Dhobi Ghat". We have been apprised by Mr. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, that "dhobi ghat" is a description of a place where clothes are washed. Thus, it has a place oriented description. We really fail to understand how naming of a movie/film of this nature can be offensive to the caste in question. 3. At this juncture, we may note with profit that cinema as a medium of expression and as a mode of entertainment has reache