JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation questioning the status of the programs that are being depicted through a telecast on various television channels that have been reflected in the petition and the supplementary affidavit filed today of the programs of the respondent No. 2 ‘Nirmal Baba’, which the petitioner alleges to be in violation of the provisions of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 particularly Rule 6 thereof which is extracted herein under: “6. Programme Code.- (1) No programme should be carried in the cable service which: - (a) Offends against good taste or decency: (b) Contains criticism of friendly countries; (c) Contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes; (d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths; (e) Is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote-anti-national attitudes; (f) Contains anything amounting to contempt of court; (g) Contains aspersions against the integrity of the President and Judiciary; (h) Contains anything affecting the integrity of the Nation; (i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country ; (j) Encourages superstition or blind belief; (k) Denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a women, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals; (l) Denigrates children; (m) Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups (n) Contravenes the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. (o) is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition Provided that no film or film song or film promo or film trailer or music video or music albums or their promos, whether produced in India or abroad, shall be carried through cable service unless it has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)) as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition in India. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, the expression “unrestricted public exhibition” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952); (2) The cable operator should strive to carry programmes in his cable service which project women in a positive, leadership role of sobriety, moral and character building qualities. (3) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any programme in respect of which copyright subsists under the Copyright Act, 1972 (14 of 1972) unless he has been granted a licence by owners of copyright under the Act in respect of such programme. (4) Care should be taken to ensure that programmes meant for children do not contain any bad language or explicit scenes of violence. (5) Programmes unsuitable for children must not be carried in the cable service at times when the largest numbers of children are viewing. (6) No cable operator shall carry or include in his cable service any television broadcast or channel, which has not been registered by the Central Government for being viewed within the territory of India PROVIDED that a cable operator may continue to carry or include in his cable service any Television broadcast or channel, whose application for registration to the Central Government was made on or before 11th May, 2006 and is under consideration, for a period upto [31st May, 2008]1 or till such registration has been granted or refused, whichever is earlier PROVIDED further that channels uplinking from India, in accordance permission for uplinking granted before 2nd December, 2005, shall be treated as registered television channels and can be carried or included in the cable service.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court particularly to clause (j) of Rule 6(1) of the said Rules that the program which is being exhibited on the channels by respondent No. 2 clearly encourages superstition and blind belief which is a violation of the Programme Code aforesaid and thus any permission to any channel in violation of the said rules deserves to be rescinded forthwith. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the policy guidelines for down-linking of the television channels promulgated on 11.11.2005, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that have been amended from time to time. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the policy guidelines for down-linking of the television channels promulgated on 11.11.2005, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that have been amended from time to time. Learned counsel has particularly pointed out the provisions of clause 6.1 of the said guidelines which is extracted herein under: “6.1 In the event of a channel found to have been / being used for transmitting any objectionable unauthorized content, messages, or communication inconsistent with public interest or national security or failing to comply with the directions as per Para 5.8 or Para 5.16, the permission granted shall be revoked and the company shall be disqualified to hold any such permission for a period of five years, apart from liability for punishment under other applicable laws. Further, the registration of the channel shall be revoked and the channel shall be disqualified from being considered for fresh registration for a period of five years.” The said guidelines clearly provide that if any permission has been granted and the channel is found to have allowed it to be used for transmitting any such content which fails to comply with the directions and the guidelines then the permission shall be revoked. It is, therefore, submitted that any violation of the rules as referred to herein above clearly dis-entitles the channel concerned to further continue to enjoy the permission as granted under the aforesaid guidelines. In order to substantiate the aforesaid submission learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court pertaining to the complaint of the telecast of such a program by respondent No. 2 that was referred to in the letter dated 30.5.2012 dispatched by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to the Secretary General of the News Broadcasters Association, the Broadcast Content Complaint Council and the Advertising Standards Council of India. The same has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-Union of India. It is urged that a perusal thereof clearly demonstrates that the Ministry itself has admitted having taken up the issue with these non-governmental organizations and was in the process of taking appropriate action in accordance with rules. Sri Pandey submits that in spite of this the programs continue to be telecast on several channels for which a supplementary affidavit has been filed today reiterating the same. Sri Pandey submits that in spite of this the programs continue to be telecast on several channels for which a supplementary affidavit has been filed today reiterating the same. It is, therefore, urged that once it is established that the channels are themselves being treated to have violated the said norms then it is not understood as to why the respondent-Union of India through its concerned ministry and authority has not proceeded to review the permission and rescind the same accordingly of such channels as they have violated the aforesaid norms as prescribed and are relatable to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 read with 1994 Rules referred to herein above. The contention is that the regulation and prohibition of the transmission or retransmission of such programs being telecast on channels are clearly regulated by law and, therefore, the failure on the part of respondent-Union of India to take action is to allow this telecast continue unabated that will cause more public harm than providing any public good. In the aforesaid background the petitioner urges that the Union of India should be directed to take appropriate action in the matter. At the very outset we may put on record that even though the respondent No. 2 who is stated to be telecasting his programs through the respective channels has been made a party, yet no notice had been issued in this case and only instructions had been called upon from the Assistant Solicitor General of India who has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The respective channels that are telecasting the program of the respondent No. 2 have not been made party to the writ petition. In all what has been brought about herein above we find that no direct mandamus can be issued in this regard by us as the proper and necessary parties are not before us in spite of the fact that the writ petition remained pending since 2012, but at the same time the facts that have been disclosed in the counter affidavit do indicate that the respondent-Union of India itself had raised the issue with the non-governmental organizations through the letter dated 30.5.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that such non-governmental associations are not empowered under the Act to take any action but they can only refer the matter and also process the complaint in the event it is brought to their notice. There is no further material to indicate as to what has further happened after the letters were issued by the Government of India. We, therefore, leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the respondent No. 1 and in the event the petitioner files a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 1 the same shall be examined by the said authority in the light of the provisions that have been referred to herein above and in case it is found that the provisions have been violated it shall be open to the respondent No. 1 to take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible after putting the concerned cable operators and channels and the concerned parties to notice in accordance with law. This Public Interest Litigation is Disposed Off with the said observations.