1997 JTR(SC) 76
1997 ILR(Kar) 3097 ; 1997 10 JT 686 ; 1998 1 RLW(Raj) 141 ; 1997 3 Scale 17 ; 1997 3 Scale(SP) 17 ; 1997 7 SCC 91 ; 1996 8 Supreme 141
1996(8) Supreme 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Record of Proceedings)
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.P. Bharucha and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd. -Petitioner
versus
Mahila Jagran Manch & Ors. -Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22902/96
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-11-1996 in WA 9173/96 of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
With
(Appln(s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T.)
Order dated 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, C.K. Sasi, Sanjeev Ahuja, Kailash Vasdev, Nikhil & Ms. Meenakshi Sakhardande, Vanita Sahai, Advocates.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
In the case of holding of the Miss World Beauty Pageant in Bangalore, India, the Supreme Court granted ad-interim stay of the operation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd. filing an affidavit that liquor will be served only as a welcome toast at the beginning of the pageant and at the end of the contest in selected enclosures, only to the invitees, organisers and dignitaries and not to the audience generally or to the participants.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.136, Art.226
(A) The provisions of Article 21, Article 136, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are engaged in this matter, where the High Court issued directions regulating the service of liquor and recovery of expenses for maintaining law and order during a pageant. Article 21, read with Article 226, empowers the High Court to issue necessary directions to protect life and personal liberty, including ensuring that any commercial activity does not disturb public order or impose financial burden on the State. Article 136 provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter, which is relevant for petitioners challenging the directions of the High Court. The petitioners affidavit, filed under Article 226 proceedings, modifies the practice of liquor service to only selected enclosures and to invitees, thereby addressing the primary concern of the Division Bench regarding public order and fiscal liability, making the additional directions unsustainable.
(B) Key legal principles include the balance between commercial rights and public order, the scope of judicial directions under Article 226, the liability of the State in maintaining law and order, and the admissibility of modifications through affidavits to mitigate judicial concerns.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners organized a pageant for which the High Court had issued directions restricting the service of liquor and imposing financial liabilities on the State for security and maintenance. The petitioners filed an affidavit stating that liquor would be served only as a toast to invitees, organizers, and dignitaries in selected enclosures, and that the petitioners would bear the requisite charges for security.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners affidavit sufficiently addressed the main anxiety of the Division Bench regarding liquor service and expenses. The court held that the remaining directions were not sustainable and granted an ad-interim stay on the operation of the High Courts directions.
Issues:
Whether the service of liquor and the financial implications addressed by the petitioners affidavit were the primary concerns of the Division Bench, and whether the remaining directions were justified.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that the petitioners modified practice of serving liquor and bearing the associated costs satisfied the core concerns of the Division Bench, rendering the additional directions unnecessary and unsustainable.
Result:
The court granted an ad-interim stay on the operation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court, with all actions taken in pursuance of those directives also stayed.
(A) The provisions of Article 21, Article 136, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are engaged in this matter, where the High Court issued directions regulating the service of liquor and recovery of expenses for maintaining law and order during a pageant. Article 21, read with Article 226, empowers the High Court to issue necessary directions to protect life and personal liberty, including ensuring that any commercial activity does not disturb public order or impose financial burden on the State. Article 136 provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter, which is relevant for petitioners challenging the directions of the High Court. The petitioners affidavit, filed under Article 226 proceedings, modifies the practice of liquor service to only selected enclosures and to invitees, thereby addressing the primary concern of the Division Bench regarding public order and fiscal liability, making the additional directions unsustainable.
(B) Key legal principles include the balance between commercial rights and public order, the scope of judicial directions under Article 226, the liability of the State in maintaining law and order, and the admissibility of modifications through affidavits to mitigate judicial concerns.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners organized a pageant for which the High Court had issued directions restricting the service of liquor and imposing financial liabilities on the State for security and maintenance. The petitioners filed an affidavit stating that liquor would be served only as a toast to invitees, organizers, and dignitaries in selected enclosures, and that the petitioners would bear the requisite charges for security.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners affidavit sufficiently addressed the main anxiety of the Division Bench regarding liquor service and expenses. The court held that the remaining directions were not sustainable and granted an ad-interim stay on the operation of the High Courts directions.
Issues:
Whether the service of liquor and the financial implications addressed by the petitioners affidavit were the primary concerns of the Division Bench, and whether the remaining directions were justified.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that the petitioners modified practice of serving liquor and bearing the associated costs satisfied the core concerns of the Division Bench, rendering the additional directions unnecessary and unsustainable.
Result:
The court granted an ad-interim stay on the operation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court, with all actions taken in pursuance of those directives also stayed.
ORDER
We have carefully perused the pleadings in the High Court and the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. We have also taken note of the directions given by the Division Bench. The petitioners appreciating the anxiety of the Division Bench on the question of serving of liquor and payment of expenses to be incurred by the State for maintenance of law and order have filed an affidavit sworn by the General Manager (Legal) of the petitioner-Company wherein it is stated as under :
(a) Liquor will be served only as a welcome toast at the beginning of the pageant and as a toast at the end of the contest. This service will be in selected enclosures and will be served only to the invitees, organisers and dignitaries seated in those enclosures. No liquor shall be served to the audience generally or to the participants.
(b) The petitioner would pay the requisite charges to the State for providing security for the pageant in accordance with the applicable rules.
2. This, in our view, satisfies the main anxiety of the Division Bench. The rest of the directions, we are prima-facie satisfied, are not sustainable.
3. In view of what has been stated in the affidavit we grant ad-interim stay of the operation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court. All actions taken in pursuance of these directives shall also be stayed.
Notice to respondents returnable within six weeks.
4. A copy of this order may be given to counsel for the petitioners today and may be sent by fax to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka and to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka.
Ordered accordingly. Notice to Mahila Jagran Manch returnable within six weeks.
********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd. v. Mahila Jagran Manch, 1996(8) Supreme 141
00030
00031