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

The Kerala High Court has held that the expression "persons distinguished in the field of visual arts" under the Regulations governing the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, must receive a broad, contextual interpretation and cannot be confined to its dictionary meaning, observing that the Government must have flexibility in constituting award juries. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398]Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while delivering the judgment in writ challenging the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022.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, ...

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

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anamika MJ

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

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers