R.P. Sethi, C.J.
1. 'Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' is the centuries old saying which is universally acknowledged. Such a belief has been attempted to be belied by few in the later part of the 20th Century. Beauty is sought to be established by the certificates issued by the specialists in the field claiming perfection on the subject, To achieve and accomplish the certification of Beauty various contests are held, Miss World 1996 being one of those. The concept of beauty varies from race to race, from nation to nation and individual to individual. However, the certified beauty in the contest held in that behalf has a commercial aspect. In such beauty contests the participants are only from feminine gender who are generally believed to be the models or actresses or wishing to be such models and actresses. Upon their success in the aforesaid contests the participants are supposed to be lavishly paid and winners are awarded awards, prizes and other benefits.
2. Respondent 2 is stated to have decided to hold Miss World 1996 contest in Bangalore amidst the controversy and objections raised by a section of the Society. The appellant claiming to be the exponent and representative of those who were opposed to the holding of such a context filed a petition in this Court praying therein for the issuance of direction to prohibit the holding of Miss World Contest at any place in the country in general and at Bangalore in particular. The petition was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and perusing the record dismissed the petition vide his order now impugned in this appeal.
3. Some of the facts necessary for adjudicating the pleas raised are that the petitioner vide her letter dated 29-8-1996 which was addressedto the Chief Justice of this Court prayed for the issuance of the following reliefs:
'(a) Mr. Amitabh Bachhan and his Corporation 'AMITABH BACHHAN CORPORATION LIMITED' (ABCL) should be stopped forthwith and direction to be given to desist from further preparations and hosting of Miss WORLD COMPETITION, anywhere in India including Bangalore.
(b) The respective State Governments including the State of Karnataka to be directed that they should not allow any of its departments like Police, Health, Mahanagar Palike, BWSSB, KEB and Tourism to extend any sort of co-operation. The Honourable High Court also has been prayed that it should direct the State Government to recover the exemplary cost for using Press Conference Hall at Vidhana Soudha, and also an apology to be demanded from the State Government and Sri Amitabh Bachhan for announcing shameless, meaningless commercial event from Vidhana Soudha.
(c) The Honourable High Court direct the Chinnaswamy Stadium authorities not to allow Mr. Amitabh Bachhan or his company ABCL to host, MISS WORLD CONTEST.
(d) The Honourable High Court of Karnataka issue blanket ban on conducting MISS WORLD COMPETITION to save the INDIAN CULTURE AD HERITAGE, and to stop spread of AIDS VIRUS through many of the dubious characters, men and women of other countries.
(e) The Honourable High Court of Karnataka issue directions to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and Indian Embassies to not to issue VISAS to any person who intend to visit India for MISS WORLD COMPETITION'.
4. The letter was directed to be treated as Public interest litigation and listed before the appropriate bench. In her letter the appellant has submitted that the announcement made by Sri Amitabh Bachhan to hold Miss World Contest in the country was intended to deliberately tarnish the image of the country and its women. The attempt was termed to be a blatant attack on the Indian culture and civilisation. The holding of the contest was attributed to be the outcome of the policy of liberalisation which was alleged to have brought in obscenity and nudity. The contest was termed to be an assault on Bharathiya Samskrithi for the commercial gains of respondent 2. The Indian culture was stated to have provided a sense of security and protection to the women which was alleged to be taken away by holding such contest. It was submitted that hosting of the contest was likely to bring internationally organised Gangs and Groups in FLESH TRADE, NARCOTICS, and underworld lords to India, which was likely to result in promoting, inducing and trafficking persons for sexual abuse. It was feared that international men and women of dubious character, many with AIDS infection, may cause havoc with the life of Indian men and women, thus causing gravehealth hazard and sending the whole health system of this Country to disarray. The holding of such a contest was likely to give opportunity to hoarders and blackmarketers to exploit the situation and mint money, the ultimate sufferer being the poor. It was further apprehended that there will be serious law and order problem due to the large influx of foreigners including many women wearing semi-nude and short dresses. It was also apprehended that large police machinery would be deployed to protect the foreigners while the common public would not be able to get any relief of any sort at any Police Station due to concerned Police Officers being on duty in connection with contests. Offences were likely to increase during the period of contest. It was submitted that proposed contest would amount to violating the provisions of Section 292 of the IPC and other provisions of the Police Act for alleged indecent exposure by the participants. It was submitted that the Government was becoming a party in organising, managing and holding of the contest which was not permissible. It was said that Sri Amitabh Bachhan was illegally permitted to hold Press Conference in the Secretariat of the Government. The commercial activities of a private citizen or a Company could not be permitted to be carried on with the blessings, assistance and co-operation of the State and its functionaries.
5. Respondent-State in their statement of objections submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that otherwise also the petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was alleged to have been filed on the basis of misinformation and misconception about the Indian women and their legal status. It was considered that women of India commanded the highest respect and regard in the Indian Society. It was alleged that the aspersions cast and allegations made by the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid contest were without any basis. It was submitted that the contest would not in any way tarnish the image of India or affect adversely the Indian cultural heritage. It was categorically stated that the beauty contest referred to in the writ petition was not sponsored by the Government of Karnataka nor the Government was incurring any financial expenditure. It was further submitted that no one from the organisers has sought any permission from the Government for holding MISS WORLD PAGEANT 1996. The Press Conference at Vidhana Soudha was stated to have been held in order to save time and inconvenience to the leaders of the State to announce the programme of the sponsors of this International event which was likely to bring credit to the City of Bangalore in particular and to the Country in general. It was submitted that the event was likely to boost the tourism.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 it was reiterated that the writ petition was not maintainable because the allegations made were allegedly based on false and frivolous statements which were stated to be untrue and based upon facts wrongly assumed by the petitioner to he true. The petition was stated to have arisen out of complete ignorance, lack of information and misconception about theWorld Beauty Pageant being held for the first time in India. The right of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition was also challenged. The petition was termed to be full of falsehood, misinformation and reckless condemnation of men and women of other countries. It was explained that the beauty contest originated in 1951 in United Kingdom as a promotional event to focus attention on the Festival of Britain. The contest was created by one Eric Morley who has been successful in holding the Pageant ever since. Earlier the beauty contest related to the beauty aspect of the contestants, but in the year 1961 a charity element was introduced, whereby all monies collected were allegedly donated to the charity. In 1969, Julia Morley wife of Eric Morley who took over the organization extended the Miss World fund raising in the UK to the rest of the world and coined the slogan 'Beauty with a purpose'. Since the inception Miss World was claimed to have raised more than 150 million US dollars for charity. The modern Miss World was presented in the form of an international fashion show as, apart from Miss World title, contestants compete for Miss Personality, Miss Photogenic and other titles, including awards for the most spectacular designer dress which gives opportunity for promotion of young couturieres in each country. The pageant is claimed to be a great artistic creation showing the beauty and talent of women at its best on a world-wide scale. The pageant finals has been held in South Africa until 1995 without any criticism or scandal. The pageant was claimed to be well organised, disciplined and regulated event. The movement, behaviour and conduct of all the participants is strictly regulated. The petitioner is alleged to be not entitled to any relief inasmuch as she along with her colleagues has threatened to commit breach of law by immolating and committing suicide if the contest was permitted to be held in Bangalore. The beauty contest was being held in Bangalore as a tribute to the former Miss World 1994 who was claimed to be hailing from the State of Karnataka. It was denied that any of the Indian culture or its civilization or that there has been a great threat to the heritage of the Country. The pageant proposed to be held could not be termed to be obscene or giving rise to nudity. In fact the only event open for public viewing was the final of Miss World 1996. In that event the participants were to be elegantly clothed in gowns. The allegation that the Chairman of the Company of the 2nd respondent was causing assault on Bharathiya Samskriti was denied. The allegation that foreign participants would be wearing semi-nude and short-dresses was alleged to be vague. No provision of Section 292 of the IPC or any other law would be violated by the participants. It was admitted that the Chairman of the 2nd respondent addressed a Press Conference in Vidhana Soudha which was done in honour and keeping with the prestige of the office of the Chief Minister of the State and to save his time causing the least inconvenience to a person of his position.
7. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner the averments made in the replies were denied, It was submitted that respondent 2's object in promoting the event of Miss World 1996 is only in the interest of business and their claim of holding the contest of beauty with a purpose was afarce. Certain statements were attributed to the Chief Minister of Karnataka which allegedly amounted to provocation and attack on Bharathiya Samskrithi. It was further submitted that the action of holding the beauty contest was being used to suppress the voice of the dissent. The respondents were alleged to be violating the fundamental rights available to the citizens of India under Part III of the Constitution.
8. In its further statement during the pendency of appeal the respondent 1 submitted that before holding Press Conference in the Secretariat a proposal was made in April 1996 that a competition for selection of Miss World was proposed to be held in India and Bangalore was considered as one of the possible locations in the country. Organisers of the function approached the State Government seeking assistance and cooperation in holding the competition. Since the Government felt that holding of such internationally prestigious event would promote tourism, trade, and business etc., and internationally project the image of the State, it was decided to extend necessary assistance and co-operation to the organisers in holding the competition at Bangalore. In connection with the launching of the competition in Bangalore, the Chief Minister agreed to address a Press Conference. It is claimed that since the Chief Minister was holding the Press Conference, it was organised in the Conference hall of Vidhana Soudha on 26-8-1996. The organisers of the competition were also present at the Press Conference. It is submitted that the Press Conference was not held by a representative of the 2nd respondent. The holding of such a Press Conference has been claimed to be not unprecedented.
9. One Sri M.L. Shankaralingappa, Officer on Special Duty (Media Co-ordinator) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka has also filed affidavit denying the allegations made against Chief Minister and submitted that the Press statements attributed to the Chief Minister were false and without any basis.
10. In this appeal the points requiring adjudication are:
(1) Whether the holding of beauty contest is permissible or not;
(2) Whether the State Government can assist and co-operate in holding of the event in Bangalore for allegedly in furtherance and encouragement of tourism; and
(3) Even if the holding of beauty contest was not opposed to any provisions of law whether the holding of such an occasion or contest be directed to be regulated to protect the interests of those who are opposed to the holding of such an occasion.
11. Before adverting to the questions formulated herein above a preliminary objection raised by the respondents is required to be dealt with. It has been submitted and faintly argued that the petitioner was not entitled to file the writ petition as none of her fundamental or legal right is threatened to be violated. It is submitted that as the petitioner has no locus standi, her petition was liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that as the letter addressed by K.N. Shashikala has beentreated to be a petition on behalf of Manila Jagaran Manch, no relief can be granted because according to the settled position of law no fundamental right is available to a corporate person.
12. With the development of the constitutional law in our country for over a period of four decades the old orthodox rule of locus standi has lost its relevance in matters of public importance particularly where there is allegation of the violation of the fundamental rights. Under the normal circumstances, it is only a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of the violation of his legal right by the impugned action or who is likely to suffer an injury by the reasoning of threatened violation of his legal right, can alone approach the Court invoking its jurisdiction for the issuance of any of the writs contemplated under the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has held that the rule of locus standi being a rule of ancient vintage cannot be insisted upon in a case of violation of the fundamental rights. Some of the decisions of the Supreme Court--K. Ramadas Shenoy v Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Others, S.P. Gupta v Union of India and Another, Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra , Miss Veena Sethi v State of Bihar, Janata Dal v H.S. Chowdhary and Others, KM. Srinivas v R.M. Prem Chand and Others, have dealt with the subject of locus standi in relation to the public interest litigation. It has authoritatively been held that the public interest litigation cannot be permitted to be invoked by a person or a body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. Nor can it be permitted to be invoked by a busybody or an interloper. The question of locus standi would not be material and the Courts would allow litigation in public interest if it is found-
(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and relief is sought for its enforcement;
(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affect the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the constitutional law;
(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busybody or meddlesome interloper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;
(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or unrelated objectives. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in public in such litigation;
(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;
(vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out of technicalities;
(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;
(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;
(x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest'.
13. In the present case, the learned Single Judge also referred to various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and ultimately rightly concluded: 'Thus such a public interest litigation is maintainable and the petitioner has the locus standi to file such petition'. A perusal of the letter which was treated as writ petition and the analysis of the arguments addressed clearly shows that in the instant case the appellants have alleged violation of fundamental rights. It is further submitted that the acts of omission and commission attributable to the respondent-State were palpably illegal and that the appellant did not have any personal interest in the litigation initiated by her. The respondents have also not alleged that the appellant consisted of group of persons which could be termed to be busybody or meddlesome interlopers or that they have approached the Court with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance. The appellant has submitted that the litigation was being initiated in public interest and the acts complained of, if are not remedied or prevented, would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of judiciary. We are satisfied that the forum of the Court was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigants, politicians, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. There is no substance in the objection of the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and the writ appeal.
Regarding Point No. 1:
14. The holding of the Beauty Pageant or contest in Bangalore has been termed to be a cultural invasion of India. It is submitted that such a contest would damage the image of the Country in general and lower the dignity of women in particular. The appellant has alleged that the contest if allowed to be held would adversely affect the youth of the Country and may result in the spread of various diseases including AIDS. It is further alleged that the Beauty Pageant is nothing but an exhibition of nudity and demonstration of sexual vulgarity. It offends the decency tending to devoid a corrupt person whose minds are open to sexually immoral influences. It has been termed to be a conspiracy to corrupt public morals in the Indian Society. The pageant has been described as exhibition of the feminine body from swim suits to measurements of its different parts to attract audience for the purpose of minting money.
15. The organisers of the contest have however submitted that the contest would be neither vulgar nor immoral. The averments of the appellant regarding invasion of Indian culture have vehemently been denied. It is submitted that contests are held with a purpose and that participants are supposed to be women of character and repute. The allegation of the appellant that the Pageant would result in encouragement of flesh trade and of narcotics has been emphatically denied. It has been stated to be a cultural event intended to promote the social values and the status of women in the world.
16. The unique position of the Indian women in our Society and the cultural heritage of India has been admitted and acknowledged by all the parties concerned. It is not disputed that the dignity of women has to be preserved and protected. It is also not denied that the State would not permit any person or institution to commit an offence punishable under the provisions of the Penal Code or any other Statute. Women personhood, including motherhood, wifehood and childhood under the law has been acknowledged to be imperative. Social exploitation on the ground of sex, colour or creed has been prohibited under the constitutional set up of our country. In the Indian polity, all efforts have been made for liberation of women and guarantee to them of their dignity and personality. Despite preservation of the rights of women and acknowledgement of their equal status in the Society, the Constitution framers incorporated Article 51-A which imposed fundamental duties upon the citizens of India including the duty 'to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women'. In an article 'Justice to Women: The Constitutional Mirages and Legal Potentialities' Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India observed:
'The role of judiciary regarding women and law leaves much to be desired. With an all-male cast at the high judicial levels, this bias is not a surprise. The passion to defend womanhood's honour and status in civil and criminal justice is just absent. There is an individual ness in common law jurisprudence about the status of women. The sex bias is shared by Indian. English and AmericanJudges. The Indian Judges reflecting Indian socio-political and economic bias have broadly upheld the jurisprudence of gender subjection. Indeed benign sex discrimination in favour of women is a political decision and therefore the battle has to be fought not merely in Courts. Women are still marketed commodities as the Kamla's case, supra, before the Court demonstrated'.
17. Referring to various legislations made with the object of benefiting the women and protect their dignity, Justice Krishna Iyer further observed:
'The beneficient legislation like Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act is not sincerely enforced. Red light districts flourish, five-star hotels with nude night clubs, massage parlors with comfort girls, blue film shows as appetizer and rustic girls as easy victims of merchants of female flesh are flourishing industries. The police perfunctorily investigate and half-heartedly prosecute with masculine bias. Bonded labour, whereby women are subjected to dehumanized work by contractors and legislation has not ended despite the twenty point programme which has no operationally punitive teeth or rehabilitatively healing hand. The anti-beggary legislation is brutally enforced only against pregnant women begging for a living and orphans digging into dustbins for a morsel'.
18. While seeking intervention of this Court, the appellant has submitted that the holding of the Beauty Pageant would not only amount to degrading the dignity of the women but also violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the show would amount to commission of offences punishable under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that as by exhibition of their body, the participant women would be quenching the sexual lust of the audience, they would thus be incurring the wrath of provisions of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act. The Beauty show is also stated to be an infringement of the provisions of the Act No. 60 of 1986, namely, The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
19. In his judgment, the learned Single Judge has dealt with this aspect of the matter and relying upon Rex v Hicklin, Bobby Art International v Ompal Singh Hoon, K.A. Abbas v Union of India and Another, Raj Kapoor and Others v State (Delhi Administration) and Others, held:
Tested on the touchstone, of the aforesaid principles and guidelines, I have no hesitation to hold that a beauty pageant, in the form of Miss World Contest within the parameters described and prescribed by the sponsors and organisers, will not be offensive to the principles of morality and decency; nor could it be deemed asobscene in the eye of law. This shall not be treated as a pre-judgment of what is to take place, but a perception of the event, from the description of the annual event'.
20. Mr. Jayaram, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that there was no material brought on record to even prima facie, show that the proposed Beauty Pageant was likely to violate any provision of law or amount to an invasion of Indian culture. He has submitted that without reference to the details of the show, it could not be said that the event was likely to be obscene or immoral. It is contended that in the absence of the Beauty Pageant contest, it cannot be presumed that the participants therein would be guilty of any provisions of law. Prima facie, we find substance in the argument of the learned Counsel. Despite our best efforts, we could not ascertain from both the sides as to what was the nature of the contest and how it was intended to be held/conducted and concluded. Prima facie, the general finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that holding of the 'Miss World Contest' would not be offensive cannot be accepted. The learned Judge has relied upon various pronouncements which were pronounced having regard to existing material either in the form of books or cinematographs. The contents of the offending material could be seen, observed and adjudicated in the aforesaid cases which is not the position in case of the Beauty contest likely to be held on 23rd November, 1996.
21. We have also not been persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the holding of the said contest would amount to violation of any fundamental or legal rights. We are of the opinion that if at the time of holding of the Beauty Contest, the organisers, the sponsors, the patrons on the participants are found to be violating any law of the land, they could be prosecuted and dealt with in accordance with the procedure provided for dealing with commission of such offences. However, the violators of law cannot be permitted to go scot-free and sufficient provision is required to be made to deal with the situation in that eventuality. The dignity of the women of the country and the cultural heritage and the social values have to be preserved. No one can be permitted to either play with the dignity of women or the cultural values of the nation or the cultural heritage of the country. The grievance of the appellants that they have been differently treated than the respondents shall be dealt with separately, but in view of the fact that no material has been placed before us, it cannot be said that holding of the Beauty Contest at Bangalore on 23rd November, 1996 was not permissible. If any provision of law is infringed, effective measures would be taken for punishing the violator of law in accordance with the procedure established at the instance of the law enforcing agency or in the manner as directed by the Court,
Regarding Point No. 2;
22. It has been conceded before us, by all concerned that the State Government cannot assist and co-operate in holding Beauty Pageant. The occasion cannot be termed to be either any social, cultural or a sports event. From the pleadings of the parties and the arguments addressed, we have come to the conclusion that the said function is a purely commercial adventure of respondent 2. There can be a difference of opinion regarding the proclaimed object for which the pageant was being held, hut there is no difference of opinion that the said function is not a function of the State. It has been vainly and alternatively argued on behalf of the respondent-State that such contest was intended to encourage tourism, therefore, the same was liable to be protected and safeguarded. The general averment made in this behalf cannot justify the participation of the State in the function in any manner except for providing security and protection to the participants and the audience. Tourism cannot be permitted to be encouraged or projected if it is at the cost of respect, dignity and honour of the nation or its citizens including women. The State has not been in a position to show as to how the tourism was likely to be encouraged by the holding of such an event. Mere participation of a few influential and rich people from across the country and abroad cannot be termed to be boosting tourism. The occasion may be utilised for the purpose of the exhibition of the State's cultural heritage but nothing appears or shown to have been done in this behalf. The State Government has also admitted that the contest was being held by respondent 2 and that the State has nothing to do with the occasion. It has been stated 'The respondent herein submits with utmost respect that the Beauty Contest referred to in the writ petition is not sponsored by the Government of Karnataka nor the Government of Karnataka is incurring any financial expenditure, no one has sought permission to hold a Miss World Pageant 1996' from the Government'.
23. It has been further submitted that as participants from about 90 countries including dignitaries like Sultan of Brunei are expected to be in the State, the respondent-State was under an obligation to provide them security and in view of the alleged threats given by the appellant and others, the respondent-State is obliged to protect law and order situation. They have sought permission to deploy additional forces only for the limited purpose of protecting the dignitaries and for maintaining the public order.
24. We are therefore of the view that the controversial Beauty Pageant being conducted by respondent 2 is not a State function in any manner and that the State Government cannot assist and co-operate as has been admitted by them, in the holding of the said event except to the extent of providing police protection and other essential amenities in accordance with law and on payment of requisite charges. The State Government has declared not to incur and is expected not to incur any expenditure for holding, arranging or conducting the aforesaid event. Even if the tourism is impliedly encouraged by holding of the event, the respondent-State cannot be permitted to assist or co-operate in holding of the contest which is admittedly a business adventure and commercial activity of respondent 2.
25. Regarding Point No. 3:
Holding of the Beauty Contest is the primary concern of respondent 2. If any law is violated during the conduct of the contest, an obligation is cast upon respondent 1 to take appropriate action under law. If the law and order problem arises, the same has to be regulated and maintained by respondent 1. The Courts of law are generally not expected to give directions regarding the holding of such contests or the maintenance of law and order. The Courts exercise their powers with restraint, caution and circumspections provided by the Constitution, the Statute and the legal precedents. However in a case where it is prima facie established that the State was omitting to discharge its duty or acting in partisan manner or the ends of justice and the maintenance of rule of law required interference the Courts cannot hesitate to intervene for protection of the rights of the aggrieved and maintenance of the rule of law. The learned Advocate General has relied upon the judgments in Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, A.K. Roy v Union of India and Others, Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, Supreme Court of India v Union of India and Others and State of Jammu and Kashmir v A.R. Zakki and Others, to urge that this Court had no jurisdiction to issue a command directing the issuance of imposition of restrictions by the State through an executive order.
26. Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and 'for any other purpose'. It is now settled position of law that Article 226 confers a very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and writs of the nature specified therein for the purposes of enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or 'for any other purpose'. Ordinarily such power would be exercised for the enforcement of fundamental or legal rights but it cannot be necessarily limited to such cases alone. The words 'for any other purpose' are required to be read in the context of what precedes those words. The conferment of such wide powers puts the Court on guard to issue the appropriate writs after proper judicial probe and satisfaction. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 admittedly are wider in many fields than those of the Supreme Court under Article 32. Speaking for the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Jeshingbhai Ishwarlal v The Emperor, Chagla C.J., as his Lordship then was, held:
'(a) Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Scope of -- Administrative order -- Fundamental right affected -- Jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ of certiorari or other writs against executive officer.
Under Article 226, the jurisdiction of the High Court is not merely confined to the writs which it issued in the past, but power has been conferred upon it to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III which deals with fundamental rights. It is not possible to read 'directions, orders, or writs' as being ejusdem generis with what follows, because these 'directions, orders or writs' refer to a larger category in which category is included writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari. The Article further confers upon the High Court the power to issue not only writs in the nature of various categories specified in that Article, but those writs themselves, and further the Article goes on to state that these writs or orders can be issued not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other purpose. 'Any other purpose' was embodied in this Article in order to remove any doubt that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue these writs was confined merely to the enforcement of fundamental rights because the High Court could issue a writ otherwise than for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and that power of the High Court is saved and safeguarded by providing in Article 226 that the writs can be issued not only for the purposes of enforcement of fundamental rights but also for any other purpose'.
27. In the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate General, it has been held that no directions can he issued by the Court to the Government for the purposes of issuance of executive orders. In Kharak Singh's case, supra, the Court was dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 and in that context it held:
'It is wholly erroneous to assume that before the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 could be invoked, the applicant must either establish that he has no other remedy adequate or otherwise or that he has exhausted such remedies as the law affords and has yet not obtained proper redress, for when once it is proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that by State action the fundamental right of a petitioner under Article 32 has been infringed, it is not only the right but the duty of the Supreme Court to afford relief to him by passing appropriate orders in that behalf.
In that case after striking-down the impugned Regulation 236(b) the Court held the petitioner entitled to the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh not to continue domiciliary visits.
28. In A.K. Roy's case, supra, the Apex Court held that the Executive was responsible to the Parliament and if the Parliament considered that the executive has betrayed its trust by not bringing any provision of the amendment into force, it can censure the executive. The Court could not compel the Government to bring a constitutional amendment into force because it was found difficult to appreciate what practical difficulty could prevent the Government from bringing into force the provisions of Section 3 introduced by 44th Amendment. It was held that the remedywas not the writ of mandamus. It was further held 'the Court's power of judicial review in such cases has to be capable of being exercised both positively and negatively, if indeed it has that power: positively, by issuing a mandamus calling upon the Government to act and negatively by inhibiting it from acting. It further held that no such direction can be issued because, 'if the Parliament had laid down an objective standard or test governing the decision of the Central Government in the matter of enforcement of the amendment, it may have been possible to assess the situation judicially by examining the causes of the inaction of the Government in order to see how far they bear upon the standard or tests by the Parliament. But, the Parliament has left the matter to the judgment of the Central Government without prescribing any objective norms. That makes it difficult for us to substitute our own judgment for that of the Government on the question whether Section 3 of the Amendment Act should be brought into force. This is particularly so when the failure of the Central Government to bring that section into force so far can be no impediment in the way of the Parliament in enacting a provision in the National Security Act on the lines of that section'. The case pertained to the detention of Sri A.K. Roy, Marxist Member of the Parliament who was directed to be detained by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. The impugned ordinance was challenged on the ground of its being destructive of the system of parliamentary democracy. Despite upholding the constitutional validity of the ordinance the Court directed 'if any of the persons detained under the National Security Act are at present housed in the same ward or cell where the convicts are housed, immediate steps must be taken to segregate them appropriately'. The Indian human', whenever necessary, has of course 'a constant companion'--the Court armed with the Constitution', and informed by it.
29. In Aeltemesh Rein case, supra, it was held:
'It is not open to the Supreme Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to bring a statute or a statutory provision into force when according to the said statute the date on which it should be brought into force is left to the discretion of the Central Government. But, that would not come in the way of the Supreme Court issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to consider whether the time for bringing the statute or provision thereof into force has arrived or not. Every discretionary power vested in the Executive should be exercised in a just, reasonable and fair way. That is the essence of the rule of law'.
30. In A.R. Zakki's case, supra, it was held that writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature or Executive to enact a particular legislation or to make rules. Even though the direction issued by the High Court for framing of rules was set aside, it was observed in thatcase that the recommendation made by the High Court should normally be accepted.
31. In Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa, it was held that in exercise of its powers under Article 32, the Supreme Court and under Article 226, the High Court had the jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief even in the form of compensation where human rights were violated by theState.
32. In the light of what has been discussed above it can be said that there is no absolute bar for this Court to issue appropriate directions in form of mandamus or prohibition in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution if it is found that any of the fundamental right of a citizen was being violated or the issuance of such direction was otherwise necessary to protect the fundamental and legal rights and the human dignity which is admittedly a right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
33. The issuance of some directions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case are also necessary on account of the confusion created by the Authorities of the respondent-State in connection with the holding of the Pageant. The general impression created that the State was a party and associated with the holding of the contest has to be dispelled with. The apprehended violation of the constitutional and the legal rights is required to be safeguarded and vindicated. Before exercise of such a power the Court is however required to be satisfied that such apprehensions were not imaginary or concocted. The partisan attitude of the State is attributed to its acts of commission and omissions on the grounds:
(1) That it allowed the Government Secretariat to be used by the respondent 2 as venue of its Press Conference.
(2) Acts of participation of some Ministers in the arrangements being made for holding of the Beauty Pageant.
(3) The excess deployment of armed and security forces.
(4) The partisan attitude of the State vis-a-vis patronizes and antagonists of Beauty Pageant.
(5) The arrest and detention of some workers of the appellant and other organisations opposed to the holding of the contest at the instance of respondent 2.
(6) Apprehended violation of the provisions of the Police Act, the Penal Code, Central Act No. 60 of 1986.
(7) Implied and passive support of various functionaries of the State in connection with the holding of the Beauty Pageant.
34. All the averments made may not be correct, but cannot be termed to be without substance. The allegations can also not be held to beimaginary or concocted only for the purposes of filing of the present appeal. Mishandling and over-enthusiasm shown in holding of the Beauty Contest may have been a reason which might have resulted in conception of an impression with respect to the partisan attitude of the respondent.
35. The State Government appears to have taken divergent stands with respect to the holding of the Press Conference on the 26th August, 1996 in the Conference Hall of the Government Secretariat. It was argued before us that the respondent 2 'was allowed to hold the Press Conference in order to save inconvenience to the leaders of the State to announce the programme of the sponsors of the event which was intended to bring credit to the city of Bangalore in particular and to the country in general'. It was also suggested during arguments that some fee has also been charged from respondent 2 to utilise the Conference Hall for the purposes of holding of the press conference. The respondent 2 in their reply had stated, 'I submit that it is true that the Chairman of my Company addressed a Press Conference in the Vidhana Soudha. This was done in honour and keeping with the prestige of the office of the Chief Minister of the State and to save his time causing the least inconvenience to the person of his position'. The Chairman of respondent 2 is also attributed to have made statement to the press that 'he committed a mistake by addressing his Press Conference from the Vidhana Soudha'. During the course of the arguments a further statement was filed on behalf of the respondent in which it was stated 'that the Press Conference was held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and not by representative of respondent 2-ABCL Limited'. It has been further stated that holding of such Press Conference in the Conference Hall was not unprecedented. It appears that the respondent-State itself was not clear as to whether the Press Conference was held and conducted by the Chief Minister of the State or by the Amitabh Bachhan of respondent 2. If there appeared some confusion in the minds of the respondents regarding the exact nature of the Press Conference, it cannot be held that the appellant or some other persons like her were wrong in assuming that the Press Conference was held by Amitabh Bachhan of respondent 2 in Vidhana Soudha which amongst others was attended by the Chief Minister.
36. Similarly in their statement of objections filed in the writ petition it was stated that 'the respondent herein submits with utmost respect that the beauty contest referred to in the writ petition is not sponsored by Government of Karnataka nor Government of Karnataka is incurring financial expenditure, no one has sought permission to hold a Miss World Pageant 1996 from the Government'. However, in the additional statement filed during the pendency of the appeal it was stated 'since the State Government felt that holding of such an international prestigious event would promote tourism, trade, business, etc., and internationally project the image of the State, it was decided to extend necessary assistance and co-operation to the organizers for holding the competitionin Bangalore'. The deployment of the police force and requisition made for deployment of other security force has not been controverted. It is also not disputed that in order to assure the holding of the Beauty Pageant, the State has taken effective measure against those who are opposed to the holding of such an occasion. Even without waiting for the alleged overt acts of the companions of the opponents of the event, some responsible Ministers of the respondent-State and the officials entrusted with maintenance of law and order made certain statements in favour of the holding of the event. The event might have been an event intended to promote tourism, trade and business, but the over-enthusiasm shown by the officials of the respondent-State created some impressions in the minds of some people that the State was partisan in the matter. We have opted not to refer to further allegations made by the parties against each other lest it may pollute the social atmosphere resulting in law and order problem. However, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where some guidelines are required to be indicated which should be followed by the respondent-State during the course of the conduct of the event of Miss World 1996. The Court cannot assume to itself the powers relating to regulations or issuing directions for maintenance of law and order. But the Court also cannot remain a silent spectator and permit the respondents to have resort to excess use of police force for protection of the rights of one of the rivals of the particular event. The Court also cannot permit violation of any provision of law or to facilitate the conduct of the event in such manner which may hurt the reasonable feeling of section 6f the Society.
37. It is worthwhile to mention that the respondent 2 has decided to serve liquor in public to a section of the audience which is opposed to the provisions of law and against the social and moral ethics of our Society.
38. While deciding the writ petition the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the aspect of the matter regarding the extent of the participation of the State in the conduct of the Miss World 1996 despite the fact that the appellant had made a prayer to that effect in her writ petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge to that extent is required to be modified.
39. No ground has been made out for issuance of direction to respondent 3 restraining it to allow the Chinnaswamy stadium to be used as a place for holding of the beauty contest. The transaction between respondents 2 and 3 appears to be contractual and commercial and both the respondents are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 as none of them has been shown to be a State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
40. Similarly no directions can be issued to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and Indian Embassies for not issuing the visa to the persons who intend to visit India in connection with Miss World competition, firstly because Union of India is not impleaded as a party and secondly no ground has been made-out for issuance of such direction.
41. Under the circumstances this appeal is disposed of modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated above and by the issuance of following directions and observations:
(1) That the holding of Miss World 1996 cannot be stopped by the issuance of any direction to the respondents as prayed for by the appellant.
(2) The holding of the Miss World 1996 shall be subject to observance of laws of the land and there would not be any indecent exposures of the body of the participants amounting to obscenity or nudity. If any of the law of the land is violated or participants indulge in obscenity and nudity, appropriate case shall be registered by the Police of the respondent-State.
(3) That during the holding of the event no liquor in any form shall be served in public to the participants or any section of the audience.
(4) The respondent-State shall maintain law and order by deployment preferably of the State Police force and in emergent cases the other Security Force stated to have already been requisitioned but in no case Indian Army or the BSF would be deployed in connection with the holding of the Pageant. The deployment of Security Forces shall be subject to the payment of the expenditure by respondent 2 in accordance with the rules and orders in existence.
(5) The opponents shall not be prevented from democratically and peacefully protesting against the event, subject of course to the prohibitory, and regulatory orders issued, if any, under the laws.
(6) The respondent-State shall ensure the use of minimum force against the protestors.
(7) It may be appreciated by the opponents of holding of beauty contest if the officials of the respondent-State and the Ministers may see the desirability of not participating in the function as guests of respondent 2 without payment of requisite entry fee.
This observation is made only with the object of allaying the apprehensions of some people that the State was an active participant in the holding of this event.
It is emphasised and made clear that this observation shall not be deemed to be a direction.
(8) No department of respondent-State shall assist or co-operate in the holding of the event except to the extent and upon conditions as already directed by us vide our interim order dated 7th November, 1996.
42. In order to seek compliance and the observance of the directions issued herein above excepting the observation we direct that the Director General of Police of Karnataka shall ensure observance of directions and submit his report to the Court after the event. Registrar General ofthis Court shall also be afforded all facilities by the concerned to monitor the observance of the directions contained herein above and submit his report in the Court after the event. He is also authorised to bring to the notice of the Director General for the registration of a criminal case, if provision of any law is violated.
43. If from the report of the Director General of Police or the Registrar General, it is found that any term or condition issued by the Court has been violated, the Registry shall submit the report before the Bench for taking appropriate action including the initiation of contempt proceedings. Awarding of costs out of the amount deposited in the Court shall be determined after the submission of the report by the Director General of Police and the Registrar General of this Court.
Extracts of this judgment containing directions and observations (pages 40-43) shall immediately be supplied to the Counsel for the parties, the Registrar General of the High Court and the Director General of Police for information, compliance and further necessary action.