The Secretary, Ministry Of ... vs Cricket Association Of Bengal & ... on 9 February, 1995 14. In Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and others [(1988) 3 SCC 410 ], it was held that the right of citizens to exhibit films on Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 [1] (a) which can be curtailed only under circumstances set out under Article 19 [2]. The right is similar to the right of citizen to public his views through any other media such as newspapers, maga- zines, advertisement hoarding etc. subject to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media. The freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by the Supreme Court. However, on the question whether a citizen has a fundamental right to estab- lish a private broadcasting station or T.V. centre, the Court reserved its opinion for decision in an appropriate case. The matter had come up before this Court against an interim injunction order issued by the High Court as a result of which 12th and 13th episodes of the film "Honi- Anhoni" could not be telecast on the scheduled dates. The Court held that it was not the case of the writ petitioners before the High Court that the exhibition of the said serial was in contravention of any specific law or direction issued by the Government. They had also not alleged that the Doordarshan had shown any undue favour to the appellant and the sponsoring institutions resulting in any financial loss to the public exchequer. The objection to the exhibition of the film had been raised by them on the basis that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs among the members of the public. They had not asserted any right conferred on them by any statute or acquired by them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order of temporary injunction. The appellant before this court had denied that the exhibition of the serial was likely to affect prejudicially the wellbeing of the people. The Union of India and Doordarshan had pleaded that the serial was being telecast after following the prescribed procedure and taking necessary precautions. The writ petitioners had not produced any material. apart from their own statements to show" that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the community. This Court held that the High Court had overlooked that the issue of an order of interim injunction would infringe the fundamental right of the producer of a serial. In the absence of any prima facie evidence of gross prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally by the exhibition of the serial, it was not just and proper to issue an order of temporary in- junction. 15. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 574], it was held that the-freedom of speech under Ar- ticle 19 [1] (a) means the right to express one's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communication and,their right to propagate or publish opinion. The communication of ideas could be made, through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie. But this right is subject to reasonable restriction in the larger interests of the community and the country set out in Article 19 [2]. These restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests specified in Article 19 [2]. This is the difference between the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 19 of our Constitution. The decisions bearing on the First Amendment are, therefore, not useful to us except the broad principle and purpose of the guarantee. The Court, in this connection, referred to the U.S. decisions in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission [236 US 230 (1915)], Burslyn v. Wilson [343 US 495] and Schenck v. United States [249 US 47]. The Court further held that there should be a compromise between the interest of freedom of expression and social interests. The Court cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of equal weight. The Court's commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/ 9