Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Raghunatha Rao Chakkilam vs The Central Board Of Film ... on 28 June, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 60 (A. P.)
Author: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.35212 of 2012 dated:28-6-2013 Raghunatha Rao Chakkilam... Petitioner The Central Board of Film Certification,Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,Mumbai and others.. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: Counsel for petitioner : Sri K. Anthony Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Sri V. Krishna Mohan Counsel for respondent No.6 : Sri S. Sriram ?CASES REFERRED: 1. AIR 1971 S.C. 481 2. (1919) 249 U.S. 47 3. (1927) 274 U.S. 357 4. (1951) 343 U.S. 495 5. (1959) 360 U.S. 684 6. AIR 1980 S.C. 258 7. AIR 1980 S.C. 685 8. (1932) 285 U.S. 105 9. (2001) 1 SCC 582 10. W.P.Nos.11006, 11381 & 11575/2006, dt. 21-6-2006 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.35212 & 35948 of 2012 The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT:
The certification issued by the Revising Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad, for exhibition of the Telugu film "Denikaina Ready" is questioned in these two Writ Petitions.
W.P.No.35212/2012 is filed by an individual, a resident of Hyderabad, belonging to the Brahmin community. W.P.No.35948/2012 is filed by an organization called the A.P. Brahmana Seva Sangha Samakhya and one Dronamraju Ravi Kumar, who claims to be the President of the youth wing of the A.P. Brahmana Seva Samakhya.
Challenge to the certification of the film is based on common grounds in both the Writ Petitions. According to the petitioners, the film is intended to denigrate the Brahmin community by showing them in poor light and thereby deeply hurting the religious sentiments of the Brahmin community. It is pleaded that certain of the dialogues which are referred in the affidavits depict Brahmin pundits as greedy for money; and that certain other scenes have shown the Brahmin women in poor light, laced with obscenity and young Brahmins being fond of non-vegetarian. They have challenged the film certification as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
One Ravinuthala Shashidhar s/o. Venkatachary, filed an Intervention Petition in W.P.No.35212/2012 and his application i.e., WPMP No.45970/2012 filed for this purpose, was ordered on 28-11-2012. He was accordingly impleaded as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.35212/2012.
On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Smt. A. Dhanalakshmi, the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad, filed a counter- affidavit. She has sought to justify the "UA" Certificate issued based on the recommendations of the Revising Committee with three minor cuts. She has referred to and relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in K.A. Abbas Vs. Union of India1 and pleaded for non-interference by the Court.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the producers of the film, filed counter- affidavit, wherein they have denied that the film is intended to denigrate the Brahmin community in the society. They have pleaded that at the outset they have published a disclaimer before the starting of the film that the characters in the film are fictitious and that if they bear any similarity to any person or members of any community, it is purely a coincidence and the same is not intended to hurt anybody's sentiments. It is further stated that the dialogues and scenes in the film were necessitated to suit its subject and context and the film is in no way violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or the Cinematograph Act, 1952, or any of the legal rights of the petitioners or the Brahmin community as a whole.
Having regard to the contentious issues centering around it, this Court felt the necessity of watching the film in the midst of hearing. Accordingly, the exhibition of the film, in the presence of the Counsel for all the parties, was arranged. While watching the film, the Court noted the scenes and the dialogues, which allegedly affected the sentiments of the Brahmin community.
Exhibition of the films is regulated by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Section 5-B of the Act lays down the principles for guidance for certifying films. This provision reads as under:
(1) 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 security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. (2) Subject to the provisions contain 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 this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.
The Government of India issued guidelines to be followed by the Board of Film Certification vide S.O. 9(E) dated 7-1-1978. These directions were superceded by a fresh set of directions issued vide notification S.O. 836(E) dated 6-12- 1991. Clause-1 of the said notification enumerates objectives of the film certification, which inter alia provides that the certification shall ensure that the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society; that artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed; that certification is responsive to social change; and that the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment. Clause-2 thereof contains directions to be followed by the Board of Film Certification to achieve the objectives mentioned in Clause-1. In the present context of the case, the following directions are worth mentioning:
(i) ....
(ii) ....
....
(vii) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;
(viii) ....
(ix) Scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
(x) ...
(xi) ...
(xii) visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented.
(xiii) ...
...
(xviii) visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals, or contempt of court are not presented;
Clause-3 of the notification directs that the Board of Film Certification shall inter alia ensure that the film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact.
Whenever a controversy regarding a film arises, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is invoked by the film producer to repel the attack. This Article recognized the freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right of all the citizens. However, Clause (2) of Article 19 empowers the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) 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. Indeed, Section 5-B of the Act replicates Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution is not unfettered or absolute right, but a restricted one which is subject to the limitations prescribed by Clause (2) of Article 19 besides Section 5-B of the Act and the guidelines issued thereunder.
The competing rights of the film producers and the citizens are often subject matter of judicial adjudication the world over. Even though the first amendment to the American Constitution which guaranteed freedom of speech and expression is not hedged in by any restrictions unlike Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the decisions rendered by the American Supreme Court are often quoted by our Supreme Court. The obvious reason for this is that even in the absence of a clause imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, the American Courts have read such restrictions into the provision to prevent the evil effects of unrestricted freedom of speech and expression and imminent danger such unrestricted freedom may pose to the society. The test of "clear and present danger" propounded by Justice Holmes as the only basis for curtailing the freedom of speech and expression in Schenck Vs. U.S.2 was further expanded by Justice Brandeis in Whitney Vs. California3 by laying down the following three tests :
(a) There must be a clear and present danger that speech would produce a substantial evil that the State has power to prevent. This is not to say that it is enough if there is 'fear', there must be reasonable grounds to fear that serious evil would result from the exercise of speech and expression;
(b) There must be a 'present' or 'imminent' 'danger and for this there must be reasonable grounds to hold this opinion and that no reasonable opportunity was available to avert the consequences; and
(c) The substantive evil to be prevented must be serious before there can be a prohibition on freedom of speech and expression for the police power of the State could not be exercised to take away the guarantee to avert a relatively trivial harm to society.
In Burstyn Vs. Wilson4, the American Supreme Court held that though motion pictures were protected in the United States by the First Amendment through the fourteenth, there was no absolute freedom to exhibit every motion picture of every kind at all times and places. After making a thorough review of the entire American case law, the Apex Court in K.A. Abbas (1-supra) summarized the essence of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States as under
:
"The attitude of the Supreme Court of the United States is not as uniform as one could wish. It may be taken as settled that motion picture is considered a form of expression and entitled to protection of First Amendment. The view that it is only commercial and business, and, therefore, not entitled to the protection as was said in Mutual Film Corporation (2) is not now accepted. It is also settled that freedom of speech and expression admits of extremely narrow restraints in cases of clear and present danger, but included in the restraints are prior as well as subsequent restraints. The censorship should be based on precise statement of what may not be subject matter of film making and this should allow full liberty to the growth of art and literature. Age classification is permissible and sustainability for special audiences is not to depend on whether the average man would have considered the film suitable. Procedural safeguards as laid down in the Freedman case (3) must also be observed. The film can only be censored if it offends in the manner set out in Roth's case."
While noticing that the American Constitution granted freedom of speech and expression in absolute terms without any qualification, the Apex Court has quoted Justice Douglas in Kingsley International Pictures Corporation Vs. Regents5, who was the strongest proponent of freedom while comparing the constitutional provisions of the United States with ours in the following words :
"If we had a provision in our Constitution for 'reasonable' regulation of the press such as India has included in hers, there would be room for argument that censorship in the interests of morality would be permissible".
The Supreme Court, however, noticed that inspite of absence of such exceptions, Judges in America have tried to read reasonable restrictions into the First Amendment while considering the right of freedom of speech and expression. The Apex Court recognized the need of balancing the interests of the community with individual interests in the larger interests of the community to combat dishonesty, corruption, gambling, vice and other things of immoral tendency and things which affect the security of the State and the preservation of public order and tranquility. It further held that the censorship imposed on the making and exhibition of films is in the interests of the society and that such censorship, including prior restraint, is justified under our Constitution.
In Raj Kapoor Vs. State and others6, the Supreme Court termed the plea of the film producer that once the Film Censor Board granted Certificate, no prosecution will lie against the film maker on any count, "extreme contention". It held that film certificate will not bar prosecution. Interestingly, a few days later, Krishna Iyer.,J who rendered the earlier Judgment has taken a different view in Raj Kapoor Vs. Lakshman s/o. Kishanlal Gavai7. He held at paras 5 and 6 as under:
"Jurisprudentially viewed, an act may be an offence, definitionally speaking; but a forbidden act may not spell inevitable guilt if the law itself declares that in certain special circumstances, it is not to be regarded as an offence. The chapter on General Exceptions operates in this province. Section 79 makes an offence, a non-offence, only when the offending act is actually justified by law or is bona fide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified.
Once the Board of Censors, acting within their jurisdiction and on an application made and pursued in good faith, sanctions the public exhibition of a film, the producer and connected agencies enter the statutory harbour and are protected because Section 79 exonerates them in view of the bona fide belief that the certificate is justificatory."
The U.S. Courts have maintained a distinction between the freedom of information available to a citizen in privacy at home and the freedom to speak and express in public place. As early as 1932, Brandies.,J in Packer Corporation Vs. Utah8 held that the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression shall be more stringent in the cases of Billboards or street car placards as opposed to newspapers, magazines and radios where the people have the choice not to see or listen. In Union of India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa9, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of the State that exhibition of the film may create law and order problem. It was held that once an expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it has no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation and that it is for the State Government concerned to see that law and order is maintained. It was further held that in any democratic society, there are bound to be divergent views and merely because a small section of the society has a different view from that taken by the Tribunal and chose to express their views by unlawful means, the same would be no ground for the executive to review or revise the decision of the Tribunal and that the clear duty of the Government is to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking appropriate actions against the persons who chose to breach the law.
In Lakshmi Ganesh Films represented by its proprietor Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh10, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has imposed ban on the screening of the film "Da Vinci Code" on the ground that it affects the religious sentiments of the Christian community. G. Raghuram.,J who watched the film while finding nothing objectionable in the film towards the Christian religion or Jesus Christ, emphasized on the fact that the film has passed censorial muster by the statutory Tribunal and made significant observations on the lines of the views of the U.S. Supreme Court in Packer Corporation (8-supra). The learned Judge observed that the objectors to the exhibition of the film are not a captive audience unlike the casual passers- by on the public street and those using the public transport by compulsory exposure to bill boards. A person has to go to the theatre by buying ticket to see the film and that he watches the film on his volition and by conscious choice and those who are offended by the content or its theme are free to avoid watching the film. The learned Judge held :
"...Dissenters of speech and expression have no censorial right to the intellectual, moral, religious, dogmatic or other choices of all mankind. The Constitution of India does not confer or tolerate such individualized, hyper- sensitive private censorial intrusion into and regulation of the guaranteed freedom of others... "
The essence of the judicial pronouncements of both the American and Indian Courts is that a motion picture is protected by the provisions concerning right to freedom and expression; that as the motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than by any other product of art, its effect, particularly on children and adults is very great; that if the Court is satisfied that the film is prurient or is affected by or spreads violence and hatred among the people or offends one's sensibilities by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity or spreads hatred among the races, religions or other groups, it would step in to prevent exhibition of such film; that a balance has to be struck between the community interests and individual interests and that in the name of censorship, artistic expression and creative freedom should not be curbed. The Courts would be slow to interfere with exhibition of films at the instance of a section or a group of persons or bodies acting as moral police on the purported ground of the film affecting religious or ethnic sentiments.
Keeping in view the above legal parameters, let me refer to the scenes which allegedly offend the religious sentiments of the Brahmin community. Before that, it is necessary to discuss the theme of the movie in brief. The story line of the film revolves around two families, one headed by Veera Narasimha Naidu and another by Basha. Saraswathi is the sister of Veera Narasimha Naidu. The siblings lost their mother at their young age. Saraswathi being younger to Veera Narasimha Naidu, the latter brought up his sister with deep love and affection. When Saraswathi's marriage was arranged, on the day of wedding, she eloped with Basha. Unable to bear the insult, the father of Saraswathi died. In a fit of rage, Veera Narasimha Naidu physically attacks Basha leading to severance of the latter's leg. In retaliation, Basha sues Veera Narasimha Naidu claiming his wife's share in the former's property. The opening scenes of the film reveal that the Court has rendered the verdict against Veera Narasimha Naidu and in favour of his sister. Veera Narasimha Naidu felt that he is suffering many set backs in life due to bad time. A person by name Sampangi Sarma, shown as the advisor of Veera Narasimha Naidu, suggested to the latter that if a ritual by name Chandi Yagam is performed, it will neutralize the ill-effects and brings good to the family.
At the other end, when the friends and relatives of Basha were elated at the success in the Court, Saraswathi expresses her desire that nothing short of union of the two warring families of herself and her brother's will bring happiness to her. Her son Suleman assures her mother that he will see to it that both the families are united.
In order to perform the ritual of Chandi Yagam, another character Bangaru Raju, has undertaken the task of arranging a well informed pundit (Ghaanapaati) for performance of the ritual. He approaches a pundit by name Narasimha Sastry over phone. Narasimha Sastry informed Bangaru Raju that he is in Nepal and that he will depute his son by name Agnihotri Krishna Sastry, who was studying in a college at Kurnool. When Bangaru Raju went to the college and enquired about Krishna Sastry, one of the students by name Bhaskar, played a trick on Krishna Sastry by terming Bangaru Raju as an encounter specialist. When Bangaru Raju approaches Krishna Sastry, to avoid him, the latter deliberately directs Bangaru Raju to Suleman and made him believe that Suleman is Krishna Sastry. On coming to know that the ritual was to be performed at the house of Veera Narasimha Naidu, Suleman tried to use the opportunity to enter the house of Veera Narasimha Naidu by impersonating himself as Krishna Sastry. After he reached Veera Narasimha Naidu's house, he meets Veera Narasimha Naidu's daughter- Sharmila. As the film progresses, Suleman and Sharmila fell in love with each other and several scenes how Suleman fell in trouble in the process of impersonation as Krishna Sastry and how he has overcome all those troubles are presented.
The theme of the movie, as narrated above, had to necessarily portray several characters belonging to the Brahmin community. In the course of conversation among these characters, they have uttered certain dialogues which according to the petitioners had shown the Brahmin community in a very poor light and as greedy. The following are the scenes which are objectionable for the petitioners:
Scene-1: When Veera Narasimha Naidu agreed for the suggestion of Sampangi Sarma for performance of the ritual, the latter felt happy and said "Good. Hereafter, all will be well in your house and I can make Rs.2 lakhs".
Scene-2: Bangaru Raju meets Suleman in college and requested him to perform the ritual thinking that he is Krishna Sastry. When Suleman wanted to know where the ritual has to be performed, Bangaru Raju told Suleman that it has to be performed in the house of Veera Narasimha Naidu and said that Suleman will get hefty money and added "I know, if you know that you will get good money (Sambhavana), you (plural) will accept the offer with wagging tail." Scene-3: During performance of the ritual, Suleman pretends that he is chanting Sanskrit slokas. He utters some mass Telugu and Hindi songs as if he was reciting the Sanskrit slokas.
Scene-4: When Sharmila suspects Suleman as a fake pundit, one of the Brahmin characters by name Bharath ridicules her by stating that while we are only Sanskrit pundits (Ghanaapaatis), Suleman is described with the surnames of certain politicians and film directors, which rhyme with the word "Ghanaapaati". In continuation of the said scene, Sharmila requests the Brahmins to stop recitation and as a quid pro quo she will give them money which they can never imagine. Similarly, she reiterated her offer to pay money to the Brahmins if they follow her instructions.
Scene-5: Bangaru Raju went to the house of Narasimha Sastry, who was away from home. Bangaru Raju was received by his wife Visalakshi. Visalakshi greets Bangaru Raju and asks him who he is and says that he resembles her husband. Bangaru Raju offered money sent by Narasimha Sastry and requested Visalakshi to serve him butter milk with lime. Visalakshi replied that her husband also demands butter milk and that he will not drink the same without lemon. When Visalakshi went inside with cash for bringing butter milk, Bangaru Raju tells himself that he is feeling tense and he suspects that if he remains there for some more time, Visalakshi may ask him to fill the void of her husband's absence.
Scene-6: When Suleman's impersonation as Krishna Sastry was getting exposed, Suleman rushes to the house of Visalakshi. When Visalakshi told Suleman that Krishna Sastry has left home for eking out his livelihood, he tells Visalakshi that he came to present Rs.25,000/- as Sambhavana. On hearing the same, Visalakshi exclaims by uttering "Rs.25,000/- ..... !" After giving money, when Suleman requested Visalakshi to allow him to address her as his mother, Visalakshi replies: "You are giving Rs.25,000/-. You can address me as amma". When Suleman wanted to be reassured on Visalakshi allowing him to be addressed as mother, Visalakshi says "Why will I refuse ... You hit me with cash". When Visalakshi offered Suleman whether he would like to take water, Suleman requested her to serve him rice with ghee, curry and pickle. Then Visalakshi replies: "God is in money (Paise mein hain Paramatma). Why won't I serve the food as you requested".
Scene-7: When Bangaru Raju and another character by name Mahadeva, the followers of Veera Narasimha Naidu, visited Narasimha Sastry's house for verification as to who the real Krishna Sastry is, Mahadeva asks Visalakshi whether they came to the house of Narasimha Sastry. Visalakshi told Mahadeva that her husband also resembles the latter with the same height and personality. Bangaru Raju chides Visalakshi stating that she uttered the same words even to him even though his height and Mahadeva's height did not match. When Mahadeva told Visalakshi that Veera Narasimha Naidu wants to give away his daughter to Krishna Sastry, she readily agrees stating that it is their fortune that such a wealthy alliance is being offered. When Suleman expressed that their food habits are different, Visalakshi recites a saying in Sanskrit "Dhanam Moolam Idham Jagath" and that there is no distinction between veg and non-veg before money.
Scene-8: One of the Brahmin teenagers by name Bharath was shown making advances with a teenaged Muslim girl Haseena. She offers a food item to him. When Bharath asked Haseena about the nature of the food item, she says it is made of rice and sugar. Bharath takes the food item to his father and other members of the team present for performance of the ritual at Veera Narasimha Naidu's house. When Bharath's father was told that the food item was sweet pongal, he asks Bharath to distribute the same to other members of the team and they were seen relishing the item while eating. When Bharath enquired with Haseena as to the ingredients with which the item was prepared, she says it was made of he-sheep and the same is called "Haleem". When Bharath's father came to know that they were made to eat Haleem, he asks all his team members to vomit. Raghava, one of the members of the team, replied stating that it is already digested and another member of the team Satish states that he has already swallowed half portion as if suggesting that there is no point in throwing it away at that stage. Scene-9: During the subsequent meeting of Haseena and Bharath, Haseena disclosed that the food item she has given to the Brahmin team was sweet pongal and not Haleem. Bharath responded by saying : "You have played around. We are all happy for eating Haleem. No.. No.. We were feeling bad. So we need not feel bad hereafter."
Undoubtedly, if each of the above narrated scenes is viewed in isolation and from the point of view of the Brahmin community, the viewer will feel offended. But, this is not the way to watch and understand a film. A film is required to be judged in its entirety having regard to its theme and the context in which the scenes are depicted. As the Brahmin characters are interwoven with the main theme of the film, the dialogues uttered by them have to be understood contextually. There is nothing to decipher from its main theme that the film was conceived with a view to denigrate the Brahmin community as a whole. But, as observed supra, if the dialogues uttered by the Brahmin characters are considered in isolation, some of them would certainly offend the religious feelings of the Brahmin community, especially the dialog Bangaru Raju uttered to Suleman in Scene-2 referred to above that if the latter gets good money, he will accept the offer with his tail wagging. It is quite apparent from the dialogue that Bangaru Raju was not referring to the greed of Suleman alone. The phrase "meeru" in the dialogue, meaning "you", in plurality, refers to the whole Brahmin community. This, in my view, lowers the image of the Brahmin community, which should have been avoided by the film maker.
One other scene which falls in the description of "obscene" towards women, if not, only towards Brahmin women, is Scene-5 supra wherein Bangaru Raju tells himself that if he remains at Visalakshi's house for some more time, she may ask him to fill the void of her husband's absence. This is not only obscene, but vulgar. The remaining scenes, without doubt, are laced with cheap comedy, obviously intended to attract the mass audience. It would have been ideal if the film maker has avoided some of the dialogues, especially those spoken by the character Visalakshi on the importance of money. However, idealism has no place while judging a film. Unless the scenes in the film are vulgar, obscene, prurient or spread hatred among different sections of the people, the right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed merely because from a purist point of view or moralistic angle, such scenes do not pass muster.
In the light of the discussion undertaken hereinbefore, I am of the view that the dialogue in Scene-2 supra uttered by Bangaru Raju to Suleman that if the latter gets good money, he will accept the offer with his tail wagging and the dialogue in Scene-5 supra uttered by Bangaru Raju that if he remains at Visalakshi's house for some more time, she may ask him to fill the void of her husband's absence, shall be deleted from the film. The Film Censor Board shall accordingly excise the said two scenes. In respect of the rest of the film, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the certification issued by the Film Censor Board.
Before closing the case, it needs to be noted that the examining Committee has examined the film on 19-10-2012 and recommended seven cuts. At the instance of respondent No.3, the film was referred to the Revising Committee, which on examining the film, recommended issuance of the Certificate under "UA" category with three minor cuts. Thus, in the wisdom of the Censor Board, there are no objectionable scenes in the film as it was released after certification. Though the Censor Board's is not the final word and the Constitutional Courts can always step in to stop the screening of films which do not conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, while causing such interference, the Court would always be slow and will not substitute its opinion with that of the Censor Board only because in the view of the objectors or the Court, the objectionable scenes ought not to be exhibited. Otherwise, every film is likely to be dragged into litigation. After all, a film is produced with huge investments and often upto the last pie and in some cases beyond the financial capacity of the producers with the monies borrowed from outside sources on huge interest. If a film is subjected to legal litigation at the instance of moral police and if the Courts are to examine the Film Censor Board's decision as if they are sitting in appeal, the film maker will be thrown at the mercy of a handful of disgruntled elements, blackmailers and rival businessmen. This is the precise reason why the Courts are loath to interfere with the exhibition of films once the expert body, the Film Censor Board issues its Certificate.
It is highly disturbing to note that in recent times, it has become fashionable for different sections of the people to take umbrage to certain films on the ground that their religious, communal and ethnic sentiments are affected by the film. They go on a rampage by damaging the theatres in which the films are exhibited and indulge in physical violence by stopping exhibition of films. Such a behaviour and conduct have no place in a civilized society. Unfortunately, the State is bowing to the sentiments of these elements and failing to take preventive steps for maintaining law and order. If any religious or ethnic group feels offended by any film, they can only avail their legal remedies and seek their grievances redressed. The State, therefore, would do well to put its foot down if any group of individuals, in whatever form and with whatever claim, tries to physically prevent exhibition of films by indulging in physical violence.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP Nos.44729/2012 and 45695/2012 filed in the respective Writ Petitions for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-6-2013