Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a teacher from Aurangabad, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging television advertisements that promoted the sale of Hanuman Chalisa Yantra with claims of extraordinary and supernatural powers. The petition named the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, police authorities, Advertising Standards Council of India, Indian Broadcasting Foundation, shopping networks, television channels, and several celebrities as respondents. In March 2015, the petitioner encountered TV advertisements claiming that the Hanuman Chalisa Yantra could cure illness, bring employment, improve business, and resolve marital issues. The advertisements featured celebrities Manoj Kumar, Anuradha Paudwal, and Anup Jalota and referred to a Baba Mangalnath who had achieved Siddhi. The product was priced at Rs.4,900 as a concessional rate, with assertions of 24 carat gold plating and a free chain. The petitioner ordered one Yantra from Respondent No.11, paid Rs.5,200, and received the product; he produced a receipt dated 11 March 2015 and other supporting documents. He made representations to the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, central advertising authority, and police, but no action was taken. The petitioner sought a declaration that the advertisement was illegal under the Black Magic Act and the Cable Television Networks Act, directions to create monitoring cells at all India and State levels, a direction to stop such advertisements, implementation of the Black Magic Act, and refund of the amount paid along with compensation. Respondent No.11 contested the petition, arguing that the Black Magic Act and Cable Television Networks Act were not applicable, that the petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies under Sections 4 and 6 of the Black Magic Act and the Consumer Protection Act, that the product had gold plating, that the rituals were normal Hindu practices, that other similar advertisements were not targeted, and that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the product was delivered in Mumbai despite the order being placed from Aurangabad. The court, noting that the petitioner initially sought to withdraw the proceeding, refused to permit withdrawal by order dated 6 July 2018, holding that the subject matter involved public interest at large and appointed amicus curiae to prosecute the matter. The court also gathered information about an earlier writ petition No.2860 of 2014 at the Nagpur Bench, which had been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition if the Central Government failed to frame necessary regulations. The matter was heard on the reliefs pressed, but the provided text does not include the final reasoned analysis or operative decision. The court reserved judgment on 16 December 2020 and pronounced it on 5 January 2021; only the initial portion of the judgment is available in the excerpt, showing that the court continued the matter in public interest.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Withdrawal Not Permitted in Public Interest - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner sought to withdraw the criminal writ petition challenging TV advertisements promoting Hanuman Chalisa Yantra; the High Court refused to permit withdrawal, holding that the subject matter involves interest of public at large and appointed amicus curiae to prosecute the matter. Held that withdrawal cannot be allowed in public interest matters (Paras 2-3). B) Media and Advertising Law - Misleading Religious Advertisements - Regulation of TV Advertisements - Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - The petition alleged that TV advertisements propagated false claims of miraculous and supernatural properties of Hanuman Chalisa Yantra to exploit superstitious persons; the court considered whether such advertisements violate the Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and sought directions for monitoring cell at all India and State levels (Paras 4-9). C) Criminal Law - Anti-Superstition Legislation - Applicability of Black Magic Act - Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, Sections 4 and 6 - Respondent No.11 contended that the Black Magic Act is not applicable and that the petitioner ought to have exhausted statutory remedies under Sections 4 and 6; the court was called upon to determine whether the advertisement fell within the prohibitions of the Act (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether advertisements on television channels promoting the sale of Hanuman Chalisa Yantra with claims of miraculous and supernatural properties are illegal under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995; whether directions should be issued for monitoring cells and refund; whether statutory remedies should have been exhausted before filing the writ petition.
Final Decision
Rule was made returnable forthwith and by consent both sides were heard for final disposal. The High Court, by order dated 6 July 2018, refused to allow withdrawal of the petition, holding that the subject matter involves interest of public at large and appointed amicus curiae. The final operative decision on the merits is not included in the provided text.
Law Points
- Advertisements claiming supernatural or miraculous properties of products may violate the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman
- Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act
- 2013 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act
- 1995
- public interest matters cannot be withdrawn at the petitioner's choice
- statutory remedies under Sections 4 and 6 of the Black Magic Act and the Consumer Protection Act may need to be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction
- the Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act
- 1995 prohibits misleading religious advertisements
- the High Court can appoint amicus curiae to prosecute public interest litigation.
