JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner's minor daughter Indulekha Joseph now aged 5 years is a talented artist. She had been given coaching in Bharathanatyam since January, 1993 and, according to the petitioner, Indulekha performed dance programmes at several places. Petitioner alleges that Indulekha is an expert in Bharathanatyam and she has received testimonials from eminent artists. Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 certificate issued by a prominent artist and news items published in dailies. Petitioner approached the third respondent, the Director of Doordarshan Trivandrum and made a request to permit the petitioner's daughter to telecast a Bharathanatyam performance. The third respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner's daughter is only a minor girl and therefore, the Bharathanatyam performance cannot be allowed to be telecast in Doordarshan, and some other dance programme could be included in another programme intended for budding artists. Petitioner went on making representations and Ext.P4 is one such representation. In Ext.P4 the petitioner made a threat to stage indefinite fast in front of the Doordarshan. As there was no reply from the third respondent petitioner offered a Sathyagraha in front of the office of the Doordarshan. Petitioner alleges that refusal of the third respondent to permit the petitioner's daughter to telecast Bharathanatyam performance in Doordarahan is violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner's child to have Bharathanatyam performance telecast in Doordarshan. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had approached the third respondent to exhibit Bharathanatyam talent of his daughter through Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum. Doordarshan has to make assessment of its own for presenting items in programmes. Doordarshan Kendra had not included Bharathanatyam in the children's programme. Performance of children in the field of classical items is not included in the Doordarshan children's programme. Bharathanatyam programme on Doordarshan is given only to auditioned artists. Only persons above the age of 16 are auditioned for this purpose. This was explained to the petitioner when he approached the third respondent. But he was not prepared to accept these explanations and he went on to the extent of staging a 'Sathyagraha' in front of the gate of Doordarshan Kendra. Exceptional talent of a child cannot be a criteria for allotting a programme in the Doordharshan. This was explained to the petitioner when he approached the third respondent. But he was not prepared to accept these explanations and he went on to the extent of staging a 'Sathyagraha' in front of the gate of Doordarshan Kendra. Exceptional talent of a child cannot be a criteria for allotting a programme in the Doordharshan. The talent has to be developed and disciplined through long practice. The artists who have come through such long practice are auditioned and the best of talents are selected for telecast. 3. I heard the petitioner's counsel and the Central Government Standing Counsel. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's child by name Indulekha Joseph is a talented artist and she is capable of performing Bharathanatyam in an exceptionally good manner and therefore, the third respondent Doordharasan should have given an opportunity to the petitioner's daughter to telecast her Bharathanatyam programme. According to the petitioner, the denial of such an opportunity to the petitioner's daughter is violative of the valuable right of the petitioner under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was argued that the Doordarshan being a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution should have acted reasonably and the refusal on the part of Doordarshan to telecast the dance programme of the petitioner's daughter is an arbitrary exercise of power. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Kanubhai D. Shah (1992 (3) SCC 637). That was a case where the respondent, the Executive trustee of the Consumer Education and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, after undertaking research into the working of the Life Insurance Corporation published a study paper portraying the discriminatory practise adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation recovering high premiums. In the study paper it was alleged that because of high premium vast majority of people cannot afford to take insurance policies. Copies of this study paper was widely circulated. A member of LIC wrote a counter article 'LIC and its Policy Holders' and published the same as an article in "Hindu", a daily newspaper. The respondent prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same paper. The member of LIC then published his own counter article in LIC's house magazine called "Yogakshema" The respondent thereupon requested the LIC to publish his rejoinder to the said article in the magazine, and LIC refused to publish the same in Yogakshama. The respondent prepared a rejoinder which was published in the same paper. The member of LIC then published his own counter article in LIC's house magazine called "Yogakshema" The respondent thereupon requested the LIC to publish his rejoinder to the said article in the magazine, and LIC refused to publish the same in Yogakshama. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that the refusal to publish the rejoiner in the magazine is violative of fundamental rights under Art.14 and 19(1)(a). The LIC denied this right on the ground that their magazine was an in-house magazine circulated amongst subscribers who were policy holders and employees and agents of the Corporation. The High Court rejected the plea of LIC and held that, "Even on the assumption that it is an in-house magazine under the pretext and guise of publishing a house magazine, the Corporation cannot violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner if he has any, and a house magazine cannot claim any privilege against the fundamental rights of a citizen." Life Insurance Corporation filed an appeal and in the appeal Supreme Court held that, "The respondent's effort in preparing the study paper was to bring to the notice of the Community that the LIC had strayed from its path by pointing out that its premium rates were unduly high when they could be low if the LIC avoided wasteful indulgences. The endeavour was to enlighten the community of the drawbacks and shortcomings of the Corporation and to pinpoint the areas where improvement was needed and was possible......... It is not the case of the LIC that the rejoinder contains anything offensive in the sense that it would fall within any of the restrictive clauses of Art.19(2) or that it is based on imaginary or concocted material. That being so on the fairness doctrine the LIC was under an obligation to publish the rejoinder since it had published counter to the study paper. That being so on the fairness doctrine the LIC was under an obligation to publish the rejoinder since it had published counter to the study paper. The respondent's fundamental right of speech and expression clearly entitled him to insist that his views on the subject should reach those who read the magazine so that they have a complete picture before them and not a one sided or distorted one." It may be noticed that in the very same decision the Supreme Court has given a caution that the above view was taken in the peculiar facts of the case and it should not be understood as laying down an absolute proposition that merely because the LIC is a State and is running a magazine with public funds it is under an obligation to print any matter that any informed citizen may forward for publication. (See Para.13). 4. I do not think that this case is in any way helpful to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner's daughter claims to be a talented artist and she is now nearly 5 1/2 years old. Petitioner has relied on a certificate issued by one of the renowned artist of Kerala namely Kalamandalam Kalyanikuttyamma. In the certificate it is mentioned that petitioner's daughter Indulekha Joseph is an exceptionally talented artist and her performance could even be shown in Nrithamandapam. I do not think that by Ext.P3 petitioner's daughter can claim any right to perform her talents through Doordarshan. The third respondent has explained that Bharathanatyam programes are given only by auditioned artists and only persons aged above 16 are called for audition. I do not think that the criterion fixed by the third respondent is either illegal or irrational. The petitioner has also not challenged the norms if any laid down by Doordarshan. Doordarshan has got wide coverage and it is one of the fundamental duties of the third respondent to see that the programmes that are telecast are of an exceptionally good nature. In order to see that the programmes of high order necessarily, certain criteria have to be fixed and in this case, the authorities have thought it fit that only Bharathanatyam and other classical types of dances need be telecast only by auditioned artists. Petitioner's daughter is a child of 5 1/2 years will not come under this category. In order to see that the programmes of high order necessarily, certain criteria have to be fixed and in this case, the authorities have thought it fit that only Bharathanatyam and other classical types of dances need be telecast only by auditioned artists. Petitioner's daughter is a child of 5 1/2 years will not come under this category. It is true that petitioner's daughter has got a right under Art.19(1) and this right includes rights to propagate one's views and to show one's talents through media. But this right is circumscribed by reasonable restrictions imposed by the authorities who are bound to respect such rights. The third respondent Doordarshan is perfectly within its rights to say that only the performance of those artists who have certain standard alone would be allowed to telecast their performance. If the standard fixed/prescribed by the third respondent is reasonable and not arbitrary, the affected party cannot have a successful plea against such a standard. 5. In the instant case, petitioner's daughter though a very talented artist does not have a right to telecast her dance performance through Doordarshan, because of the norms laid down in this regard. I do not think that there is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The O.P. is without any merit and it is dismissed.