MUMBAI: Mumbai: Observing that “One must understand that in order to be a patriot, one need not be inimical to those from abroad especially, from the neighboring country,’’ Bombay high court dismissed a petition seeking ban on Indians tying up or employing Pakistani artistes. The HC bench of Justices S B Shukre and F P Pooniwalla observed that the petitioner’s perception of patriotism and understanding of the concept of fundamental rights was “completely misplaced’’. The HC dubbed the petition “a retrograde step in promoting cultural harmony, unity and peace’’ and said it lacked merit.
The petitioner cited the resolution issued by All India Cine Workers Association (AICWA) on all Pakistani actors and artists in the Indian film industry that warned of strong action against those violating its resolution.
The HC said the petitioner’s support of resolutions or notices issued by private and non-statutory associations such as AICWA, IMPPA (Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association), FWICE (Federation of Western India Cine Employees )or MNS Cinema Wing is completely misplaced.
“A true patriot is a person who is selfless, who is devoted to the cause of his country, which he cannot be, unless he is a person who is good at heart,’’ said the HC bench of bench. It added, A person who is good at heart would welcome in his country any activity which promotes peace, harmony, and tranquility within the country and across the border, Arts, music, sports, culture, dance and so on are the activities which rise above nationalities, cultures and nations and truly bring about peace, tranquility, unity and harmony in nation and between nations.’’
Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, claiming to be an artist, producer, lyricist, had filed the petition. Through his lawyer Vibhav Krishna he apprehended “discrimination against Indian artists’’ and sought directions from HC to Central government and State to impose a complete ban on Indian citizens, companies and associations from employing or soliciting any work or associating with any Pakistani cine workers, singers, musicians and technicians.
Counsel Rui Rodrigues for the Central government, the Ministry of External Affairs and Union Home Affairs ministry sought dismissal of the “imaginary’’ and non-maintainable petition, as did Maharashtra government pleader Purnima Kantharia. Rodrigues said the plea was in fact seeking impermissible orders to the Centre to frame a policy of his desire. Agreeing, HC said it is well settled that it cannot direct the government to frame its policies.
Besides, said the HC, “in the World Cricket Cup being held in India, Cricket team from Pakistan is taking part and this has happened only because of appreciable positive steps taken by the Government of India in the interest of overall peace and harmony in consonance with Article 51 of the Constitution of India which is about promotion of international peace and security. If such a petition is to be entertained by this Court, it would set as at naught the positive initiatives taken by the Government of India in the interest of international peace and harmony.’’
The HC said the “resolutions and warnings’’ issued by the cine bodies “if true , would agitate against the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (a) (freedom of speech) , 19 (1) (g) (freedom of right to trade) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India and therefore, they would be manifestly illegal.’’
The petitioner cited the resolution issued by All India Cine Workers Association (AICWA) on all Pakistani actors and artists in the Indian film industry that warned of strong action against those violating its resolution.
The HC said the petitioner’s support of resolutions or notices issued by private and non-statutory associations such as AICWA, IMPPA (Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association), FWICE (Federation of Western India Cine Employees )or MNS Cinema Wing is completely misplaced.
“A true patriot is a person who is selfless, who is devoted to the cause of his country, which he cannot be, unless he is a person who is good at heart,’’ said the HC bench of bench. It added, A person who is good at heart would welcome in his country any activity which promotes peace, harmony, and tranquility within the country and across the border, Arts, music, sports, culture, dance and so on are the activities which rise above nationalities, cultures and nations and truly bring about peace, tranquility, unity and harmony in nation and between nations.’’
Faaiz Anwar Qureshi, claiming to be an artist, producer, lyricist, had filed the petition. Through his lawyer Vibhav Krishna he apprehended “discrimination against Indian artists’’ and sought directions from HC to Central government and State to impose a complete ban on Indian citizens, companies and associations from employing or soliciting any work or associating with any Pakistani cine workers, singers, musicians and technicians.
Counsel Rui Rodrigues for the Central government, the Ministry of External Affairs and Union Home Affairs ministry sought dismissal of the “imaginary’’ and non-maintainable petition, as did Maharashtra government pleader Purnima Kantharia. Rodrigues said the plea was in fact seeking impermissible orders to the Centre to frame a policy of his desire. Agreeing, HC said it is well settled that it cannot direct the government to frame its policies.
Besides, said the HC, “in the World Cricket Cup being held in India, Cricket team from Pakistan is taking part and this has happened only because of appreciable positive steps taken by the Government of India in the interest of overall peace and harmony in consonance with Article 51 of the Constitution of India which is about promotion of international peace and security. If such a petition is to be entertained by this Court, it would set as at naught the positive initiatives taken by the Government of India in the interest of international peace and harmony.’’
The HC said the “resolutions and warnings’’ issued by the cine bodies “if true , would agitate against the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (a) (freedom of speech) , 19 (1) (g) (freedom of right to trade) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India and therefore, they would be manifestly illegal.’’