Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Chalachitra Academy vs Union Of India
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/24TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 20257 of 2017 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-----------------------
THE KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.
BY SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH, SC,
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
AWING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
A WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING,
ROOM NO. 545, 5TH FLOOR, AWING,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, RAJENDRAPRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4. DESK OFFICER,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AWING,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
5. SHAWN SEBASTIAN,
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN PAUL,
DROKPA FILMS, 177, 18TH B MAIN ROAD,
INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALURU - 560 008
2/-
-2-
WP(C).No. 20257 of 2017 (F)
6. FAZIL N.C,
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. N.C.MUHAMMED,
NC HOUSE, VELLALASSERI, KOZHIKODE - 673 601.
7. KATHU LUKOSE,
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. LAL LUKOSE,
T.C15/494, ALTHARA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM,
SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. P.N.RAMACHANDRA,
B603, SATELLITE PARK, JOGESHWARI EAST,
MUMBAI - 400 060
9. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 TO R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
R5 & R8 BY ADV. SRI.BEN TOM
R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
R8 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PAUL
R9 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.V.SOHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON 15-11-2017 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 20257 of 2017 (F)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 ATRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
ASSOCIATION OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 ATRUE COPY OF THE PROGRAMME SCHEDULE, THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR COMPETITIVE SECTIONS AND SUCH OTHER
THINGS IN RELATION TO THE 10TH INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTARY
AND SHORT FESTIVAL OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 ATRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF
THE FEDERATION OF FILM SOCIETIES OF INDIA ISSUED TO THE 5TH
AND 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 ATRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.01.2006
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P5 ATRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY THE ORDER DATED THE 8.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 ATRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 12TH JUNE 2017 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.6.2017 IN WPC 5329 OF 2017
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI.
EXHIBIT P8 ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 ATRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16TH JUNE 2017
SUBMITTED 353 EMINENT PERSONALITIES BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P10 ATRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24TH OF NOVEMBER
2016 IN WP(C) 37260 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
sts P.S.TO JUDGE
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20257 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 15th November, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
The decision of the Central Government declining exemption for three documentary films from the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act for exhibition in an international documentary and short film festival organized by the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner is a Society established by the Government of Kerala, among others, for organizing film festivals at the National and International levels with a view to promote a good film culture in the State. An international documentary and short film festival was WPC No.20257 of 2017 2 organized by the petitioner during June, 2017. From the applications received from the producers, the organizing committee of the festival selected 170 documentary and short films for exhibition at the festival. Certification under the Cinematograph Act('the Act') is required for public exhibition of films. Section 9 of the Act, however, confers unconditional power on the Central Government to exempt any film or class of films from the process of certification under the Act. Since the documentary and the short films selected for exhibition at the festival have not obtained certification under the Act for exhibition, the petitioner sought exemption from the Central Government under Section 9 of the Act for exhibition of the said films at the festival. As per Ext.P5 order, exemption was granted by the Central Government for all the films except four including three films produced by respondents 5 to 8. Ext.P4 is the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of WPC No.20257 of 2017 3 Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, for granting exemption under Section 9 of the Act. Ext.P4 provides for a right of appeal against the decision of the Central Government on applications for exemption to the next higher authority in the Ministry. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal challenging the decision declining exemption for the four films referred to above. It is seen that since the descriptions given by the petitioner in respect of the said films were not considered adequate to decide the appeal, the competent authority called upon the petitioner to provide copies of the films also for consideration of the appeal and in response to the said direction, the petitioner made available copies of the films produced by respondents 5 to 8 namely, (1) 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar', (2) 'March, March, March' and (3) 'Unbearable Being of Lightness'. Since the petitioner could produce only copies of the aforesaid films, the competent WPC No.20257 of 2017 4 authority considered the appeal in the context of the said films. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Central Government in the appeal. As per Ext.P8, Ext.P5 decision has been affirmed.
3. The documentary film produced by respondents 5 and 6 namely, 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is a film shot at Kashmir Valley dealing with the lives of a group of young Kashmiri artists. The documentary film produced by the seventh respondent namely, 'March, March, March' is a film dealing with the agitation of the students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University during February, 2016 and its aftermath. The documentary film produced by eighth respondent namely, 'Unbearable Being of Lightness' is a film dealing with the agitation of the students at the University of Hyderabad consequent on the death of the research scholar Rohit Vemula. Ext.P5 order does not contain the reasons, if any, WPC No.20257 of 2017 5 on the basis of which the exemption sought by the petitioner was declined by the Central Government in respect of the films referred to above. As far as the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is concerned, it is stated, however, in Ext.P8 order that since there is terrorism and violence in some parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, screening of the said film on Kashmir issues is likely to be exploited by anti-national elements for creating avoidable situations. As far as the remaining two films, it is stated in Ext.P8 order that they relate to agitations of students in the recent past which adversely affected the law and order in some parts of the country. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid reasons are unsustainable and hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P8 orders in so far as it relate to the aforesaid three films.
4. The writ petition came up for admission as today motion on 19.06.2017. The festival organised by the WPC No.20257 of 2017 6 petitioner had to be concluded on 20.06.2017. Consequently, when the writ petition was taken up, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pressed for an interim order permitting them to exhibit the documentary films dealt with in Ext.P8 order at the festival. The learned State Attorney who took notice on behalf of the State Government also supported the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India who took notice on behalf of the Central Government, however, opposed the prayer for interim relief. Having regard to the sensitivity of the matters dealt with in Ext.P8 order, especially as regards the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar', this Court was not inclined to pass any interim order in the matter. At the same time, this Court was inclined to decide the matter on merits, as the issue involved was one relating to the fundamental rights guaranteed to film makers under Article 19(1) (a) of the WPC No.20257 of 2017 7 Constitution. The writ petition, in the circumstances, was adjourned on the understanding that the matter will be decided on merits, so that the films can be screened in the subsequent festivals of the petitioner at least in the event of a favourable decision.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Government justifying Ext.P8 decision. It is stated on behalf of the Central Government in the counter affidavit that the films were found to be of sensitive in nature; that the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is one which would go against the interests of the country and that the film 'March March March' gives a wrong message to the students, who after getting instigated by the film, may vitiate the campus atmosphere by their protests and violence.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 5, 7 and 8, WPC No.20257 of 2017 8 the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as also the learned State Attorney.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned decisions would go against Ext.P4 policy guidelines issued by the Central Government in as much as the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8 order would not fall within the exceptional grounds provided for in the guidelines. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India contended that the reasons stated in Ext.P8 order would squarely fall within the exceptional grounds mentioned in the guidelines. The learned State Attorney who supported the case of the petitioner contended that the right of the film maker to make and exhibit his film being part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, restrictions on the exercise of the said right can be imposed only as WPC No.20257 of 2017 9 provided for under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. According to the learned State Attorney, Ext.P4 guidelines would not satisfy the requirement under Article 19(2) of the Constitution in as much as the same cannot be regarded as law. In other words, the submission made by the learned State Attorney is that Ext.P4 guidelines is unconstitutional and therefore, the impugned order rendered on the basis of the same is unsustainable.
8. True, the right of a film maker to produce and exhibit his film is part of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and as such, restrictions can be imposed on the said right only by law as provided for under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Article 19(2) provides that nothing in sub- clause (a) of Clause (1) shall prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the WPC No.20257 of 2017 10 said sub-clause in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The Act which prohibits public exhibition of films which have not been certified under it is the law imposing restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed to the film maker under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Section 5B of the Act is the provision dealing with the restrictions on the right of the film maker. Sub- section(1) of Section 5B recites that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of Court or is WPC No.20257 of 2017 11 likely to incite the commission of any offence. The provision contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 5B is the provision conforming to Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Sub-section (2) of Section 5B provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under the Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition. It is seen that guidelines for certification of films for public exhibition have been framed by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it under Sub-section (2) of Section 5B and films are being certified in accordance with the said guidelines. Section 9 of the Act, however, provides that the Central Government may, by order in writing exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as it may impose, the exhibition of any film or class of WPC No.20257 of 2017 12 films from any of the provisions of Part II of the Act or of any Rules made thereunder. Section 9 of the Act reads thus:
"9. Power to exempt - The Central Government may, by order in writing exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as it may impose, the exhibition of any film or class of films from any of the provisions of this Part or of any rules made thereunder." As noticed above, Section 9 of the Act confers an unconditional power on the Central Government to exempt any film or class of films from any of the provisions contained in Part II and the rules made thereunder. The scheme of the Act, as discernible from the provisions contained therein, appears to me that even the reasonable restrictions imposed on the freedom of the film maker under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act can be relaxed in exceptional situations. As done by the Central Government WPC No.20257 of 2017 13 in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 5B of the Act, guidelines have been framed by the Central Government for exercise of the power of exemption conferred on it under Section 9 of the Act also for granting exemption for films for exhibition in film festivals. Ext.P4 is the said guidelines. Ext.P4, in the circumstances, can be regarded as a piece of subordinate legislation. The contention of the learned State Attorney that Ext.P4 is an executive order and that therefore, restrictions cannot be imposed on the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the film makers under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by virtue of the same, in the circumstances, is liable to be rejected.
9. Of course, in so far as Ext.P4 guidelines imposes restrictions on the exercise of the power conferred on the film makers under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the same should conform to the provisions WPC No.20257 of 2017 14 contained under Article 19(2) of the Constitution namely, that the restrictions shall be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Since the reasons stated in Ext.P8 order to decline the exemption sought by the petitioner in respect of the films referred to above are reasons provided for in Ext.P4 guidelines, before I proceed to examine the sustainability of the reasons stated in Ext.P8 order, it is necessary to consider the question whether Ext.P4 guidelines is one conforming to the requirements contained under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The guidelines provide that the Government would grant exemption for both Indian and foreign films for exhibition in festivals which are non-commercial in nature and viewership is confined to delegates including WPC No.20257 of 2017 15 filmmakers, media students, critics, films theorists, film lovers and all those associated with the production and business of film and members of the press duly registered with the festival authorities as well as its jury. The guidelines, however, clarifies that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will have the power to reject, in exceptional cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the request for exemption of any film/films if, in its opinion, it would impinge on the security or integrity of the country or affect law and order or affect relations with other countries. The relevant clause in Ext.P4 guidelines dealing with the power of the Central Government to reject the request for exemption reads thus:
"In exceptional cases, the Ministry of I & B will have the powers to reject, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the request for exemption to any film(s) if, in its opinion, it would impinge on the security or integrity of the country or affect law and order or affect relations with other countries".
The provision in Ext.P4 guidelines namely, that the Central WPC No.20257 of 2017 16 Government will have the power to reject the request for exemption to any film(s) if, in its opinion, it would impinge on the security or integrity of the country or affect relations with other countries cannot be said to be not in conformity with the provisions contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. But I do not think that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution can be curtailed on the ground that the exercise of the said power by the citizens would disturb law and order. In a case of this nature, if the film is unobjectionable and cannot be constitutionally restricted under article 19(2) of the Constitution, freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. As held by the Apex Court in S.Rangarajan v. P.Jagjivan Ram and others [(1989)2 SCC 574], such a situation would amount to negation of the rule of law and a WPC No.20257 of 2017 17 surrender to blackmail and intimidation. The right guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) being a liberty guaranteed against the State, it is the duty of the State to protect that right and the State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience. Further, it appears that the provision in Ext.P4 guidelines to the effect that request for exemption can be declined if the film is likely to affect law and order is made having regard to the expression 'public order' contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. But, 'public order', as settled by the various decisions of the Apex Court, has a larger connotation than 'law and order'. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not one which affects public order. It was held so by the Apex court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740). That was a case of detention under the Defence of India Act which permits detention of persons likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the WPC No.20257 of 2017 18 maintenance of public order. The question arose for consideration in the said case was whether a mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act. It was explained by the Apex Court in the said case that though contravention of law would always affect public order, but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In the circumstances, according to me, the expression 'law and order' contained in Ext.P4 guidelines has to be read down as 'public order', as otherwise the same may not conform to the provisions contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. I have read down Ext. P4 guidelines in the aforesaid fashion, instead of interfering with the same, for, otherwise the Central Government may not be in a position to decline exemption on account of reasons attributable to the maintenance of public order which is WPC No.20257 of 2017 19 permissible in terms of article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
10. Now I shall deal with the question whether the stand taken by the Central Government in Ext.P8 order to decline exemption for the films produced by respondents 5 to 8 for exhibition at the film festival organized by the petitioner is sustainable. As the impugned order is one rendered in exercise of the power of the State to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to respondents 5 to 8, the reasons stated in the impugned order have to be viewed with suspicion, and the burden is heavy on the authorities to show that the restrictions are reasonable and permissible under law. It is stated in Ext.P8 order that the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is a film on Kashmir issues and since the State of Jammu and Kashmir is affected by terrorism and violence, screening of such films would be exploited by anti-national elements for creating WPC No.20257 of 2017 20 avoidable situations. As noted above, even according to the petitioner, the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is a film shot at Kashmir Valley dealing with the lives of a group of young Kashmiri artists. The petitioner has no case that the film is not a film on Kashmir issues. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition itself that the said film takes a peep into the lives of a group of young Kashmiri artists and the film is an attempt to portray the unfiltered opinions of students in Kashmir Valley. It is common knowledge that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is personally affected by cross-border terrorism from the neighboring State of Pakistan and frequent acts of violence. The stand taken by the Government of India in the counter affidavit filed in this matter as regards the above film is that the unfiltered opinions expressed by the Kashmiri artists in the film are against the interests of the State. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that WPC No.20257 of 2017 21 though the petitioner has been declined permission to exhibit the film in the festival convened by them, the film is available in public domain. As disclosed in the writ petition, this Court could find the film in public domain. On watching the film, the impression created by this Court is that the film handles sensitive issues and the stand taken by the Central Government that the screening of the film is likely to be exploited by anti-national elements for creating avoidable situations, cannot be said to be unfounded. If the screening of the film is likely to be exploited by anti-national elements for creating avoidable situations, it cannot be contended that the Central Government had acted illegally in declining exemption for screening the said film at the festival, for, the same is certainly a reason falling within the scope of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution and Ext.P4 guidelines.
11. Coming to the remaining films, as noted WPC No.20257 of 2017 22 above, the reason stated for declining exemption in Ext.P8 order is that the said films relate to the agitations of the students which had already disturbed law and order in the recent past in some parts of the country including University campuses. The question arises for consideration in the context of the aforesaid films, therefore, is whether exemption can be declined for exhibition of films at film festivals on the aforesaid ground. I have held that mere disturbance of law and order can never be a ground at all to curtail the freedom guaranteed to the film-makers under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that therefore, the provision contained in Ext.P4 guidelines conferring power on the Central Government to decline exemption for film from its exhibition in Film Festival on the ground that the film would disturb law and order is unconstitutional and that therefore, the same has to be read down and understood as conferring power on the WPC No.20257 of 2017 23 Central Government to decline exemption on the ground of public order. The Central Government has no case that exhibition of the aforesaid films would disturb public order nor do they have a case that the exhibition of the aforesaid films would impinge on the security or integrity of the country or affect relations with other countries. As noted above, the case of the Central Government is only that the exhibition of the film would disturb law and order. In the said view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P8 decision to the extent it declines exemption for exhibiting the films, 'March March March' and 'the Unbearable Being of Lightness', is illegal and unsustainable.
12. That apart, as noticed above, the films 'March March March' and 'the Unbearable Being of Lightness' relate to the agitations of the students in the campuses of two Universities. It is stated in the counter WPC No.20257 of 2017 24 affidavit filed by the Central Government that the film 'March March March' engages profoundly in finding the answer to what really prompted such a massive student uprising in the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University. It is also stated that the national-anti national debate has been discussed in the film through different interviews. According to me, the aforesaid reasons stated by the Central Government to support Ext.P8 decision are irrelevant and unsustainable in the context. It is necessary to mention in this context that our Constitution guarantees not only social and economic justice, but also political justice. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution would therefore, include the right to express one's political views as well. Film is a legitimate and effective medium in which issues of general concern can be treated, subject of course to the reasonable restrictions on grounds set out under Article 19 WPC No.20257 of 2017 25 (2) of the Constitution The said right includes the right to criticize the policies of the Governments in power also. Democratic form of Government itself demands its citizens an active and intelligent participation to the affairs of the community. The public discussions with peoples participation is a basic feature and a rational process of democracy which distinguishes it from all other forms of Government. If one is allowed to say that the policy of the Government is good, another with equal freedom is entitled to say that it is bad. Such expression of opinion cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration or violence. In other words, as observed by the Apex Court in S.Rangarajan (supra), freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. It is settled that in matters like this, the contents of films are to be judged from the standards of WPC No.20257 of 2017 26 reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The stand taken by the Central Government that documentary films on student agitations in the campuses and discussions in the films as regards the correctness or otherwise of the issues which prompted the student agitation would give wrong message to the students cannot therefore be appreciated. I also fail to understand as to how such films would instigate students to vitiate the campus atmosphere with their protest and violence. Equally un-understandable is the stand that national-anti national debate discussed in the film would lead to violence, for, such debates take place on a day-to-day basis in all the news channels in the country.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and Ext.P8 order is quashed to the extent it relates to the WPC No.20257 of 2017 27 documentary films produced by respondents 7 and 8.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs