Two verdicts delivered by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as a Delhi High Court judge show him as a harsh critic of “India’s new Puritanism” and a strong judicial voice for media freedom.
The first, delivered in May 2008, asked renowned painter M.F. Hussein not to fear “India’s new Puritanism practised by a largely ignorant crowd in the name of Indian spiritual purity” and return from his self-imposed exile.
Mr. Hussein left the country after criminal proceedings were instituted against him for “hurting public sentiments” by painting “obscene” pictures of Hindu goddesses.
Justice Kaul had observed in the judgment that the painter, at age 91, “deserves to be in his home, painting his canvas.” “In a free and democratic society, tolerance is vital. This is true especially in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interests mingle,” he had observed.
“India’s new Puritanism, practised by a largely ignorant crowd in the name of Indian spiritual purity, is threatening to throw the nation back into the Pre-Renaissance era,” Justice Kaul had warned.
On January 28, 2009, Justice Kaul’s judgment stood up for the freedom of speech of the media on a petition filed by The Hindu . The newspaper challenged a show-cause notice from the government for publishing a photograph of a Formula One driver in a jacket sporting a cigarette maker’s logo.
The petition argued that Rule 4 (prohibition of advertisements of cigarettes and other tobacco products) of the Cigarettes & Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, was unconstitutional and amounted to a gag order.
“Its [Rule 4] object is to regulate something which is directly related to the circulation of a newspaper. Since circulation of a newspaper is part of the right of freedom of speech, the Act must be regarded as one directed against the freedom of speech. It has selected the fact or thing which is an essential and basic attribute of the conception of the freedom of speech, that is, the right to circulate one’s views to all whom one can reach or care to reach,” Justice Kaul said.
Quashing the notice, Justice Kaul said: “It was a reproduction of a news item on Formula One race, and Rule 4 (8) of the Act does not prevent the press from publishing news items and dissemination of ideas.” He concluded that “coverage of news is of paramount importance in any free and democratic society.”
