Persons From Diverse Fields Can Judge Television Awards, 'Visual Arts' Can't Be Construed Narrowly: Kerala High Court

The petitioners, documentary filmmakers Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Sasikumar Ambalathara, challenged the composition of the jury, the eligibility of the award-winning documentary Lost in Transit (Palayanathil Nashtapettavar), and the validity of Rules II and VII of the award regulations. They also alleged that the jury's decision was vitiated by bias.

The petitioners alleged that though the regulations require the jury to consist of distinguished persons in the field of Visual Arts, none of the jury members fell in that category and hence they were not competent to judge the entries.

The petitioners argued that the expression "visual arts" should be confined to artists engaged in painting, sculpture, photography and similar disciplines, rendering the appointed jury members ineligible.

Rejecting the contention, the Court noted that the term "visual arts" has not been defined in the Regulations. While observing that dictionary meanings may be relied upon where a term is undefined, the Court emphasised that such meanings must be understood in the context and purpose of the Regulations.

“The Television Awards for the Documentary is neither intended to consider paintings, sculpting, photography or even anything made out of a material such as wood, clay, metal or stone. The jury was constituted for the purpose of determining the award for the Best Documentary shown on television.” the Court remarked.

The Court observed that the meaning suggested by the petitioners for the term 'visual arts', does not include performances like music, drama, acting or writing, hence adopting a narrower definition as suggested by the petitioners would make the award pointless.

“The dictionary meaning as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not include performances like music, drama, acting or writing. Adopting such an interpretation would render the whole purpose of the Awards otiose, as a Television Documentary would necessarily have to include an appreciation of various aspects of film making, writing, casting, acting, music, choreography, editing, sound, visual appeal, and similar other variety of artistic areas and can even include a person who is adept in reviewing art forms, or reviewing movies. Hence to confine the term 'visual arts' in a narrow and pedantic manner, as ascribed in the dictionaries, would destroy the whole purpose of instituting the awards.” the Court said.

The Court further observed that for judging a documentary, persons like script writers, critics, directors, media analysts, producers, and other similar persons, who do not strictly fall in the dictionary meaning of the term ' visual artist' will qualify as persons falling in the category of visual arts.

It further added that the the regulations intentionally provide flexibility to the Government in appointing jurors from diverse artistic backgrounds, hence a narrow interpretation must not be adopted, unless it has been codified.

“The term 'distinguished visual arts' occurring in clause II(1) of the Regulations must be given the widest possible interpretation. Hence the contention of the petitioners, to confine the interpretation of the term 'visual arts' as in the dictionary, is legally unsustainable.” Court held.

The petitioners also challenged Rules II and VII of the award regulations, contending that requiring participants to accept the jury's decision and submit an affidavit agreeing not to question the award violated Article 14 of the Constitution by restricting access to judicial review.

The Court noted that the first petitioner, while serving as Secretary of the Kerala State Chalachithra Academy in 2017, had himself written to the Government requesting incorporation of the provision now under challenge.

The Court found that this fact had been omitted from the writ petition.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India[(2007) 8 SCC 449], the Court observed that parties invoking the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 are expected to disclose all material facts candidly.

The Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners owing to the fact that the petitioners had suppressed the relevant facts and left the constitutional challenge to Rule VII open for consideration in an appropriate case.

However, the Court upheld Rule II, which merely states that participation in the awards amounts to acceptance of the governing regulations, finding nothing arbitrary in such a provision.

The petitioners had alleged that the chairman of the jury was biased because he had worked for decades with the husband of one of the award winners at Doordarshan.

The Court held that such allegations fell far short of the legal standard required to establish bias.

The Court observed that mere professional acquaintance in a specialised field cannot give rise to a presumption of bias, particularly when decisions are taken collectively by a six-member jury and not by the chairman alone.

“Even if the said allegation of acquaintances...are assumed to be correct, still, there is no real likelihood of bias.” Court held.

The Court thus dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, and affirming the validity of the jury's constitution and decision-making process.

Case Title: Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 15562/ 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398

Counsel for Petitioners: Shyam Krishnan, N.B. Sunil Nath, Gens George Elavinmannil, S. K. Harish

Counsel for Respondents: A. Sudhi Vasudevan (Sr.), Joseph Benson, Unni Sebastian Kappen (Sr. GP), Jose Jones Joseph, Jannath Binth Manakkadaaven, Shilpa Sathish, Sajeeba Abdu T.K, Naveen. T, H. Subhalekshmi, Baby Nandhini K, V.B. Anantha Naryananan, Abhishek T.M, Shahana N