JUDGMENT - Mrs. SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---The petitioner is an Advocate and Solicitor practising in this High Court and the Supreme Court of India . She edits a monthly magazine called "The Lawyers' Collective". She is also the Secretary of an organisation known as "The Lawyer's Collective" which conducts legal literacy campaigns and provides legal aid The petitioner has been invited to address meetings. She has presented papers and articles at seminars and fought cases challenging discrimination against women. 2. In the last week of Feb., 1986 the petitioner was invited to give an interview on Television in a programme called "Sach Ki Parchaian" to be telecast over the national net-work. The topic which was to be discussed in this programme was "Laws relating to Women". The petitioner accepted the invitation. Her interview was recorded in the studio of the Bombay Doordarshan on 1st March, 1986. The petitioner was informed at the studios that she could speak on any aspect of laws relating to women. In the interview, the petitioner, apart from dealing with some aspects of laws pertaining to women, also commented on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 1986 which was then pending before Parliament. The bill had given rise to a major controversy in the country. The petitioner commented on the Bill and said that it was unconstitutional and violative of women's right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws. She also said that the Bill would deprive women of their rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case. She said that the Bill dealt severe blow to women's right to claim maintenance. Since the petitioner held strong views on the Bill she considered it not only her right but also her duty to express her firmly-held belief that the Bill was unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14 and 15. 3. The petitioner was interviewed for six minutes. Apart from the petitioner several other persons were also interviewed for this programme. These included the then Chief Justice of India as also Ved Marwah, Sheela Barse, Pandita Haskar and others. Women victims of harassment were also interviewed . All these Interviewed were collated and edited for the purpose of the programme. 4. On 3rd March, 1986 this programme was telecast. These included the then Chief Justice of India as also Ved Marwah, Sheela Barse, Pandita Haskar and others. Women victims of harassment were also interviewed . All these Interviewed were collated and edited for the purpose of the programme. 4. On 3rd March, 1986 this programme was telecast. The petitioner was surprised to find that though her views on the aspects of laws relating to women were telecast her opinion on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill was completely deleted. It is the petitioner's case that her views on the Bill were censored by Television authorities because her views were against the views of the Ruling party. 5. The petitioner came to know about the deletion of her views on the Bill from the programme only when she saw the telecast on 3rd March, 1986. She sent a letter of protest dt. 6th March 1986 to Delhi Doordarshan. In the letter she pointed out that not allowing her to express her views on Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill 1986 was a clear imposition of censorship on her views, and she felt that she had been manipulated to suit the interests of the producers of the programme as also of Doordarshan. 6. The Deputy Director of Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi in his reply of 9/10th April, 1986 accepted that initially they had planned to include in the programme the views of various persons on personal laws. He, however, said that as the duration of the programme was exceeding its stipulated time and also because of the discussions going on in Parliament the portion pertaining to Muslim Personal Law was not included in that programme. 7. In his subsequent letter of 28th April, 1986 the Deputy Director, Doordarshan has told the petitioner that it will not be possible for them to telecast the views already expressed by the petitioner on the proposed Bill but they will get in touch with her if they plan any programme on the subject in future. 8. In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for a determination of the basis on which programme on Doordarshan should be scheduled edited and /or censored. 8. In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for a determination of the basis on which programme on Doordarshan should be scheduled edited and /or censored. She has also sought a declaration that by censoring and/or deleting her views on Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Bill, the respondents have violated her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) without authority of law; a declaration that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in censoring her views thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution and for other similar reliefs. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had a right of any sort to be interviewed for a television programmes. She was however, invited to express on the T.V. National network her views on laws relating to women by the authorities of Doordarshan. Her grievance relates to omission of her views on the Muslim Women's (Right to Protection on Divorce) Bill, 1986 form the programme which was telecast. Was this done by the Doordarshan authorities in exercise of their right to edit the programme or was it censorship ? The respondents had interviewed a number of persons for this particular programme. These interviews had to be collated and properly presented. For this purpose editing was required. The respondent, therefore, claim that it is in exercise of their legitimate right of editing the programme that they deleted a portion of the interview given by the petitioner omitting her views on the Bill. The petitioner on the other hand, contends that this deletion was not in exercise of any legitimate right of editing the programme but was censorship of her views since these views were not acceptable to Doordarshan authorities. 10. When various interviews taken for a programme are edited it is necessary to ensure that in the process of editing, the views expressed are correctly conveyed on the programme which is telecast. A portion of the interview may, at times, have to be deleted while editing the programme. But in the process of such deletion there should not be any gross distortion or misrepresentation of what had been said. Not should important points raised be completely omitted. 11. In the present case a portion of the interview which expressed views unpalatable to Doordarshan was deleted. The deleted portion was directly relevant to the subject of the programme. But in the process of such deletion there should not be any gross distortion or misrepresentation of what had been said. Not should important points raised be completely omitted. 11. In the present case a portion of the interview which expressed views unpalatable to Doordarshan was deleted. The deleted portion was directly relevant to the subject of the programme. The respondents in their correspondence, have admitted that initially it was their intention to include in this programme views of various persons on personal laws. Hence the opinion expressed was relevant. Why was it deleted? 12 The respondents in their correspondence have given two reasons : (1) Paucity of time and (2) the subject was being debated in Parliament. The second reason clearly indicates the reluctance of Doordarshan authorities to telecast opinions on a controversial Bill then being debated in Parliament. The deletion, therefore, was in effect, by way of censorship, Paucity of time cannot justify a wholesale omission of the subject. 13. Under Article 19(1) of the Constitution all citizens have a right to freedom of speech and expression. This right protect freedom of speech on television as much as anywhere else. It was contended by Mr. Nilkanth, learned Advocate for the respondents that there is no right of free speech on T.V. He said that Art. 19 does not apply to television programme. Mr. Nilkanth has not cited any authority of law in support of this somewhat alarming proposition. The right to freedom of speech and expression has been considered by our courts as including freedom of the press. The right equally covers freedom of other media. A citizen cannot enjoy freedom of speech and expression if he is not permitted to express his views freely through mass media even when he is invited to use these Freedom to propagate one's views is an important ingredient of the right of free speech. A citizen who is interviewed over television by invitation of the television authorities is entitled to express his or her views freely. Censorship or deliberate distortion of these views would violate Art. 19. Any restriction of this right must be within the ambit of Art. 19(2) and by law. 14. A citizen who is interviewed over television by invitation of the television authorities is entitled to express his or her views freely. Censorship or deliberate distortion of these views would violate Art. 19. Any restriction of this right must be within the ambit of Art. 19(2) and by law. 14. In the case of (Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras)1, reported in A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124 the Supreme Court considered an order banning the entry and circulation of a journal in the State of Madras as violative of Art. 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court said, "There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation." In the case of (Sakal Paper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India)2, reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 305 the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one's ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available means of publication subject to such restrictions as could be legitimately under Clause (2) of Art 19. Our constitution does not expressly provide for the freedom of the press but this freedom is included in freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Clauses (1)(a) of Art. 19. 15. By preventing circulation of the petitioner's view on Muslim Women's (Right to Protection on Divorce) Bill the respondents have abridged her fundamental freedom of speech and expression Undoubtedly, under Art. 19(2), reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of this right in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, etc. These restrictions however, have to be within the ambit of Art. 19(2) and be imposed by law. The petitioner's right was not abridged on any of the grounds mentioned in Art. 19(2). That is not the respondent's case. Nor is it their case that they have framed any law under Art. 19(2) restricting the right of free speech on television. The respondents have restricted the petitioner's right under Art. 19(1)(a) arbitrarily by an executive fiat. Even guidelines are not framed for censorship of views expressed over television, Executive action restarting exercise of a right under Art. 19(1) (a) cannot be taken without any legislative authority. (See in this connection (Bennett Colemen and Co. The respondents have restricted the petitioner's right under Art. 19(1)(a) arbitrarily by an executive fiat. Even guidelines are not framed for censorship of views expressed over television, Executive action restarting exercise of a right under Art. 19(1) (a) cannot be taken without any legislative authority. (See in this connection (Bennett Colemen and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India)3, reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 106 (Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.)4, reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1295 and ( Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Ajmer)5, reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 25. 16. In the case of (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communication Commission)6, (1969)395 U.S. 367 the Supreme Court of the United States has emphasised the right of the listeners of radio and T.V. Programme to hear differing views on various topics of public interest. It has said. "It is the purpose of the first amendment to preserve an uninhibited market place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail rather than to countenance monopolization of that market; whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee". It is even more essential to preserve such uninhibited market place of ideas when a medium like Television is a State monopoly. Hence there is all the more reason why, in the light of Art. 19(1)(a), persons who are invited to express their views on T.V. are allowed to express them openly and freely, subject of course, to such reasonable restrictions as may be made by law under Art. 19(2). No such restrictions on telecasts have been laid down by law. The views of the petitioner, therefore, on Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill have been wrongfully deleted from the programme in question. Her views on the said Bill should have formed a part of her interview as telecast though possibly in an edited and abridged form. 17. It is therefore, declared that by deleting the petitioner's views on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill in their entirety the respondents have violated her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) without any authority of law. 18. The respondents do not now have a tape of her full interview. 17. It is therefore, declared that by deleting the petitioner's views on the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill in their entirety the respondents have violated her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) without any authority of law. 18. The respondents do not now have a tape of her full interview. In their letter of 28th April, 1986, however, the respondents while regretting their inability to telecast the views already expressed by the petitioner on the said Bill have said that if they telecast a programme on the subject in future they will invite her to express her views. Learned advocate for the petitioners has stated that he will be satisfied it directions in terms of this offer are given. It is therefore directed that respondents 2 to 5 will invite the petitioner to express her views on the Bill (now an Act) if they decide in future to telecast a programme on such a subject. Looking to the fact that the interview of the petitioner was one of several interviews was of a short duration respondents 2 to 5 may grant to the petitioner such comparable time to express her views as may be proper and reasonable in these circumstance. This direction is given because of the very fair offer made by the respondents themselves in the interest of justice. 19. The rule is made absolute accordingly. 20. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. ------