Madras High Court
V.Ramesh vs The Director General Of Police on 13 October, 2014
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.10.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.15550 of 2014
V.Ramesh
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
2.Ministry of Information and Board Casting,
rep. by the Secretary,
New Delhi.
3.The Central Board of Film Certificate,
rep. by the Chief Producer,
Bombay.
4.The Central Board of Film Certificate,
rep. by the Chief Producer,
Chennai.
(R2 to R4 are suo motu impleaded
as per the order of this
Court dated 10.09.2014)
... Respondents
Prayer
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
direct the respondent to register the complaint dated 01.08.2014 made by the
petitioner which is an attempt to create ill will between classes of people
thereby, endangering the public order.
!For Petitioner : Mr.W.Peter Rameshkumar
^For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy
Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
(for R1)
Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
Assistant Solicitor General of India
(for R2 to R4)
:ORDER
Vulgarity, obscenity, indecency, depravity, cruelty, brutality, mindless violence, sexual violence, horror, glamorization of drinking and smoking, glorification of negative characters and titles, justification of illegal means and criminal acts which would like by to incite commission of offences and degradation of cultural, moral and ethical values are all necessary stuff in now a days movies.
2. Mostly, motion pictures contain negative titles, negative characters, negative dialogues and negative message. To put it in other words, mostly films are full of negativity, which is not in the interest of the society. All the persons concerned with the cinema industry have to ponder over and make introspection about present day cinema and to redeem exhibition of moral values and family values, relationship, love, patriotism, morality, decency, ethical values, which were all subject of olden days movies. No doubt, cinema industry is a business where profit is the motive. However, it has to be remembered that cinema is a powerful medium which brought social and political changes. It should continue to inculcate values, and should not corrupt ethical, family and moral values and demoralize, dehumanize people especially impressionable youngsters.
3. Since the issue involved in this case is about two movies, this Court has to comment about present day movies which contain materials justify violence, glorify illegal acts, glamorize even drinking and degrade and denigrate women.
4. The petitioner has come before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to register his complaint dated 01.08.2014, which seeks to indirectly ban exhibition of two Tamil movies called "KATHI" and "PULIPAARVAI".
5. "Kathi" is said to be filled with anti-Tamil speeches and overtures insulting the entire 8 crores population of Tamils both Nationally and Internationally and has got scenes which show that all raped Tamil women in Sri Lanka, are now peacefully living with their Sinhalese rapists as husband and wife.
6. "Pulipaarvai" is said to be about the assassinations of Master Balachandran Son of LTTE Supremo Prabhakaran in a very poor light, portraying him as a child soldier with fire arms and he was killed during a fight with Chinese soldiers. Tamil population has been portrayed as anti-nationals and terrorists in the above movies and therefore, the objectionable movies "Kathi" and "Pulipaarvai" have to be banned from screening inside Tamil Nadu. If the movies are released, they would create enemity, law and order problem all over the sub continent. Apprehending law and order problem, due to release of these movies, the petitioner gave a complaint on 01.08.2014 and no action has been taken by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to register his complaint dated 01.08.2014.
7. Mr.W.Peter Rameshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the above movies affect sentiments of Tamils and Tamils are portrayed as anti-nationals; The movies justify war crimes committed in Sri Lanka; Already in Torrento, posters had come up against the movies and violence erupted; That apart, when the Audio release of "Puli Paarvai" was made in Chennai, there was a disturbance in the function and about 50 Layola college students were arrested for raising objections regarding the movie; The said movie is to be released 1200 theatres across the State and it would definitely create ill-will and endanger the public order; "Puli paarvai" has been produced by LYCA productions and the said movie has been financed by a Sri Lankan Multinational Company. Therefore, absolutely the motive is clear and it is aimed at avoiding conduct of International enquiry in Sri Lanka, relating to the Mass Genocide.
8. The counsel also found fault with the Censor Board for having granted censor certificates for the said movies; The Censor Board members may not be in a position to appreciate the movie in toto as they do not know Tamil. He pointed out that the corruption is more in Censor Board as evident by the arrest of a Censor Board Officer for having taken money for granting film certification on 17.08.2014 and the said officer only granted Censor Certificate for "Puli paarvai"; If that is the position of the Officer, the certificate itself is not according to law; If the pictures are released, it would create enemity between different groups on the ground of religion and it would be an offence under Section 153(A) of I.P.C. Therefore, he seeks banning of the movies;
9. Heard Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (crl.side). He would submit that if the complaint is already given to the respondent, which would be appropriately considered. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would submit that Censor Board Members viewed the movies and thereafter only the movies were cleared. Once the Censor certificates are granted, the movies are fit for public exhibition. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
Heard the parties and perused the records.
10. The procedure to be followed for film certification is elaborately given in the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The film, once produced, is sent for certification to the Board of Film Certification, which has been constituted as per the Section 3 of the Act. The films are examined as per Section 4 of the Act and are granted certification as per the Section 5(A) of the Act. If a film, in the opinion of the authority to grant certificate, is against the security of the State, public order, decency, morality, incite the commission of any offence, it will not be certified, for public exhibition as per Section 5(B) which reads as follows:-
"5-B, Principles for guidance in certifying films.-(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 interest 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 likely to incite the commission of any offence.
(2) 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 this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition."
If the films are certified as per Section 5-A of the Act, it is deemed that the film or any part of it, is not against the interest of the sovereignty of the country, public order, decency etc.,.
11. Film, "Sathyam, Sundaram, Sivam" directed by (late.) Rajkapoor was the subject matter in Rajkapoor vs. Laxman reported in AIR 1980 SC 605. The complaint was taken on file by the Magistrate filed by the respondent, therein, who contended that obscenity and indecency were exhibited in the film thereby constituting an offence under Section 292 of IPC. The proceedings before Magistrate was challenged before the High Court of Bombay under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code contending that the film having been duly certified for public show by the Board of Censor, prosecution was not sustainable. Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by the producer. However, the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the producer. In paragraph 7 of the Judgment, it has been very eloquently held that once the certificate has been granted by the expert authority, the movie cannot be stultified by a single prosecution. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"7. Indeed, the Penal Code is general, the Cinematograph Act is special. The scheme of the latter is deliberately drawn up to meet the explosively expanding cinema menace if it were not strictly policed. No doubt, the cinema is a great instrument for public good if geared to social ends and can be a public curse if directed to anti-social objectives. The freedom of expression, the right to be equally treated and the guarantee of fair hearing before heavy investments in films are destroyed belong to Indian citizens under the Constitution. But all freedom is promise, not a menace and, therefore, is subject to socially necessary restraints permitted by the Constitution. Having regard to the instant appeal of the motion picture, its versatility, realism, and its coordination of the visual and aural senses, what with the art of the cameraman with trick photography, vistavision and three dimensional representation, the celluloid art has greater capabilities of stirring up emotions and making powerful mental impact so much so the treatment of this form of art on a different footing with pre-censorship may well be regarded as a valid classification, as was held in K.A. Abbas1. Maybe, art cannot be imprisoned by the bureaucrat and aesthetics can be robbed of the glory and grace and free expression of the human spirit if governmental palate is to prescribe the permit for exhibition of artistic production in any department, more so in cinema pictures. So it is that a special legislation viz. the Act of 1952, sets-up a Board of Censors of high calibre and expertise, provides hearings, appeals and ultimate judicial review, pre-censorship and conditional exhibitions and wealth of other policing strategies. In short, a special machinery and processual justice and a host of wholesome restrictions to protect State and society are woven into the fabric of the Act. After having elaborately enacted such a legislation can it be said that a certificate granted under it by expert authority can be stultified by a simple prosecution or a shower of prosecutions for an offence under Section 292 IPC, driving the producer to satisfy a ?lay? Magistrate that the certificate of the Board of Censors notwithstanding, the film was offensive? The Board under Section 5-B has to consider, before certification, all the points Section 292 IPC prescribes. Indeed, neither the Penal Code nor the Cinematograph Act can go beyond the restrictions sanctioned by Part III of the Constitution and once the special law polices the area it is pro tanto out of bounds for the general law. At least as a matter of interpretation, Section 79 IPC resolves the apparent conflict between Section 292 IPC and Part II of the Act relating to certification of films If the Board blunders, the Act provides remedies. We are sure the public-spirited citizen may draw the attention of the agencies under the Act to protect public interest."
12. The certification of film " Ore Oru Gramathiley" was challenged before this Court on the ground that film criticised Government reservation policy and this Court revoked the censor certificate, which was overruled by the Honourable Apex Court in S.Rangarajan vs. P.Jagjivan Ram and others reported in (1989)2 SCC 574. While upholding the freedom of speech enshrined under Section 19(1)(a), it has been held that right to express one's opinion includes the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion and the communication of ideas could be made through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie. The Supreme Court also held that if the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. Paragraphs 51 and 53 of the said Judgement is usefully extracted hereunder:-
"51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State Government with regard to the film which has received the National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does not take care to protect it? If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.
53. We end here as we began on this topic. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself."
In that case, it was held in paragraph 21 that the Censor Board should exercise considerable circumspection on movies affecting the morality or decency of our people and cultural heritage of the country. Paragraph 21 is extracted as follows:-
"21. We affirm and reiterate this principle. The standard to be applied by the Board or courts for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man. We, however, wish to add a word more. The Censors Board should exercise considerable circumspection on movies affecting the morality or decency of our people and cultural heritage of the country. The moral values in particular, should not be allowed to be sacrificed in the guise of social change or cultural assimilation. Our country has had the distinction of giving birth to a galaxy of great sages and thinkers. The great thinkers and sages through their life and conduct provided principles for people to follow the path of right conduct. There have been continuous efforts at rediscovery and reiteration of those principles. Adi-guru Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhwacharya, Chaitanya Maha Prabhu, Swami Ram Krishan Paramhansa, Guru Nanak, Sant Kabir and Mahatma Gandhi, have all enlightened our path. If one prefers to go yet further back, he will find ?Tirukkural the ethical code from Tiruvalluvar teaching which is ?a general human morality and wisdom?. Besides, we have the concept of ?Dharam? (righteousness in every respect) a unique contribution of Indian civilization to humanity of the world. These are the bedrock of our civilization and should not be allowed to be shaken by unethical standards. We do not, however, mean that the censors should have an orthodox or conservative outlook. Far from it, they must be responsive to social change and they must go with the current climate. All we wish to state is that the censors may display more sensitivity to movies which will have a markedly deleterious effect to lower the moral standards of those who see it. Krishna Iyer, J., in Raj Kapoor v. Laxman in words meaningful expressed similar thought. The learned Judge said: (SCC p. 180, para 10 : SCR p. 517) ?The ultimate censorious power over the censors belongs to the people and by indifference, laxity or abetment, pictures which pollute public morals are liberally certificated; the legislation, meant by Parliament to protect people?s good morals, may be sabotaged by statutory enemies within.?
13. Similarly another film "Aarakshan" ("Reservation") was suspended from screening of the movie by the State Government even before it was publicly exhibited in theatre halls on the ground that it would like to cause a breach of peace and law and order problem. The Honourable Apex Court in Prakash Jha Productions vs. Union of India reported in (2011)8 SCC 372 held that the Examining Committee of the Censor Board gave certificate certifying that the film could be screened all over the country and that the State Government sought to sit over and override the decision of the Board by proposing deletion of some portions of the film. Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State. Relying on the decision of the Union of India vs. Shankarappa reported in (2001)1 SCC 582 it was held that once an expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is 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 the law and order situation is maintained and that in any democratic society there are bound to be divergent views.
14. In the above legal background, this case has to be examined. The contention of the petitioner is that the films contained anti-Tamil speeches, portrayed Tamils as anti-nationals, terrorists affecting sentiments of the Tamils, are as on date, imaginary, as the films are yet to be released. The films have been granted Censor Certificates after clearance by the Censor Board, which is a statutory body.
15. According to the petitioner, in paragraph 1 of the petition, both the films are to be released only on Deepavali day. The contentions of the petitioner are all either ears-say or based on assumptions. The petitioner has not seen the movies. When he has not seen the movie, it is not understandable as to how he came to know about the dialogues or the scenes, portraying the characters and showing Tamil culture values in a poor light. The films have not been exhibited in Tamil Nadu or anywhere.
16. When the films are not exhibited for public, the petitioner's contention are only figments of imagination. Assuming for a moment, the petitioner has seen the movies, he could not point out or mention about the dialogues or scenes, which affect Tamil cultural, values and sentiments. Mere allegations, without any proof, cannot be the basis to approach this Court, especially, for invocation of criminal jurisdiction. The person, who approaches the Court, has to come out with a definite case with positive evidence/proof to enable him get an order from this Court. Neither the petitioner produced any material, nor made out a case for grant of direction. One must remember that this Court cannot pass orders on presumption, assumption, conjunctures and surmises. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
17. It is contended by the petitioner that there would be a situation in which Section 144 of Cr.P.C., has to be clamped if the films are released. The apprehension of the petitioner lacks basis. Assuming for a moment, that if there is any law and problem, the State Government is there to take care of the situation. Once the film is certified for public exhibition by the statutory Board, the petitioner on assumption of law and order problem cannot approach the respondent to register the complaint.
18. A contention has been raised by the petitioner relying upon Section 153(A) of I.P.C. which reads as follows:-
"153(A)Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.?
(1)Whoever?
(a)by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-
will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, 2[or] 2[(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.?(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.] There is no dispute with regard to the offence. However, in this case, there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that the above films contain materials which constitute the offence under Section 153(A) IPC affecting maintenance of harmony.
19. It is a fact that cinema production is not only business oriented but should also be society oriented. In olden days, cinema brought social and political changes. Actors created history becoming leaders throughout the world. Many actors like Mr.Ronald Regan, Former President of U.S.A, M.G.R. in Tamil Nadu, N.T.R in Andhra Pradesh, Mr.Aronold, Hollywood actor and former Governor of California State, became rulers, having been elected by the people. It was made possible only through cinema. Social problems like child infanticide in "Karuthamma" national principles in "Parasakthi", "Nadodimannan", patriotism in "Rattha Thilagam" intercaste marriage in "Alagalooyvathillai", family values in "Pasamalar", "Paalum Pazhamum", "Nengil Oor Alayam" eradication of corruption in "Indian" have been portrayed in a wonderful way. However, for the past a few years, negative message alone is given by movies through negative characters. Most of the recent movies have become the sources of clues for the criminals to commit offences. The worst part of the cinema industry is portraying love in school, in which the school students in their school uniform elope with their boy friend/lovers. The film makers should have considered as to what kind of impact the movies have on the psychology of students of impressional age. The other evil showing students as "Dadas" and group clashes between students using lethal weapons in the movies. Industry people cannot shirk their social responsibilities putting the blame on the people stating that people like only such kind of films. Any good movie with good message is always welcomed and appreciated by the viewers at any point of time.
20. This Court already decried about the exhibition of negative roles in the films and functions of Censor Board in Tamil Nadu Brahmin Association vs. Censor Board of Film Certification and 5 others reported in 2014(2) CTC
699. The relevant paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 are extracted as follows:-
"3. By the passage of time, social values became a casualty in films, Commerce encroached into ethics and values; Economics donned the Hero, where virtues had no role to play. Antisocial activities, criminal acts are common in nowadays films which suggest that there is nothing wrong in adopting illegal, violent and immoral ways and methods to achieve the desired results, which, in turn, may also be an illegality. The effect of the most of these films is that the bad elements go Scot-free and unpunished. These films have got all materials to corrupt, deprave the minds of the people especially younger minds with immoral values. It is appalling to note, that all the changes are happening under the nose of Censor Board, which is supposed to examine the film before permitted for public exhibition. It is one of the reasons for raise in crime rate in our country, as the people used to imitate their heroes. It is reported in media that a fan of a popular hero in Andhra Pradesh became addict to alcohol after seeing the advertisement featuring his hero taking liquor. Realising the mistake, he filed a consumer case against the said hero. The above case only indicates that more social obligations and responsibilities are cast upon the actors especially leading Heroes who have large fans, to think twice before doing antihero roles which will induce and encourage negative message. Apart from making money, the leading actors have obligations and responsibilities to the people. As most of the youngsters consider their heroes as their "Role Models" the actors are duty bound to give positive message."
"12. The present matter touches upon the role of Censor Board. Many controversies are raised by recent films involving right of expression and public peace. Days of tolerance have gone and every section of the society has become very sensitive/hypersensitive and they are not even able to tolerate even necessary dialogues in the films which, some times, are considered as unwanted criticism about a particular community or religion or sex. Intolerance to criticism only creates unrest in the society. Therefore the role of the Censor Board has to be more responsible. However, the way in which mindless violence, brutality is exhibited and criminals are glamorised, glorified and criminal acts and vulgarity and obscenity are justified in many movies, it is very difficult to believe as to whether the Censor Board functions or not. Scenes justifying illegal, violent means to achieve success are common in the films which is contrary to Guideline No.2 of for certification of film for public exhibition (SO 836 (E), dated 6.12.1990). The said guidelines read as follows:
" 2. In pursuance of the above objectives, the Board of Film Certification shall ensure that -
(i) anti-social activities such as violence are not glorified or justified;
(ii) the modus operandi of criminals, other visuals or words likely to incite the commission of any offence are not depicted;
(iii) scenes -
(a) showing involvement of children in violence as victims or as perpetrators or as forced witnesses to violence, or showing children as being subjected to any form of child abuse;
(b) showing abuse or ridicule of physically and mentally handicapped persons; and
(c) showing cruelty to or abuse of, animals are not presented needlessly.
(iv) pointless or avoidable scenes of violence, cruelty and horror, scenes of violence primarily intended to provide entertainment and such scenes as may have the effect of desensitising or dehumanising people are not shown;
(v) scenes which have the effect of justifying or glorifying drinking are not shown;
(vi) scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorise drug addiction are not shown;
(via) scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorise consumption of tobacco or smoking are not shown;
(vii) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;
(viii) such dual meaning words obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed;
(ix) scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
(x) Scenes involving sexual violence against women like attempt to rape, rape or any form of molestation, or scenes of a similar nature are avoided, and if any such incident is germance to the the theme, shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown;
(xi) scenes showing sexual perversions shall be avoided and if such matters are germance to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown;
(xii) visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented;
(xiii) visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantist, antiscientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented;
(xiv) friendly relations with foreign States are not strained; (xvii) public order is not endangered;
(xviii) visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals, or contempt of court are not presented;
Explanation: Scenes that tend to create scorn, disregard of rule or undermine the dignity of court will come under the term "contempt of court", and
(xiv) National symbols and emblems are not shown except in accordance with the previsions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950)."
13. When above is the position, this Court is unable to understand as to how the films with brutality mindless violence, vulgarity and scenes which incite commission of offence are given Censor Certificates and allowed to exhibit in total contravention of guidelines. It only raises doubts about the proper functioning of Censor Board. When multilingual, multi religious groups constitute vast indian population, the role of Censor Board has to be very responsible. Cinema industry wielding enormous influence over the masses is a powerful tool of propagation by itself, apart from being in commerce, the industry should also be infused with the social responsibility, which responsibility rest in the governance of Censor Board. Therefore, this court suggests that the authorities especially for the first respondent to make amendments to Cinematograph Act and Rules and make strict regulations taking into consideration of the effect of modern films and the realities in the society. Moreover, responsible persons with commitment, vision are required to be appointed as Censor Board members. Political background should not be a consideration for appointment. The members are required to carry out the statutory functions with responsibility. Therefore, the first respondent Information Ministry is directed to give its response to the above suggestion."
21. Before taking a movie, the film makers should consider impact of the movie and present day scenario and sentiments of the people. It is better to avoid to make controversial films, which may go against popular beliefs of the people. This Court does not mean that freedom of expression should be given a ago bye. Once the movie is produced spending Crores of money and if it is opposed by a section of the people at the time of release not only loosing money, the film makers would not earn sustain loss, but also wrath of the people.
22. Now a days, it has become a fashion to oppose any movie to be released imagining that the said movie is opposed to religion, caste, community, region and race. Some times, the producers as well as persons concerned with the films are put to a pitiable position, wherein they cannot even release the movie. Cinema industry cannot be threatened. This kind of exhibition of opposition based on language, region, religion, community, race etc., has to be condemned and deprecated. It would affect the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. People should go to theatres only to enjoy of the film as a movie only and nothing beyond that. This kind of opposition would only prove the intolerance to the criticism and growth of organizations with fundamental and extreme views. At the same time, it is bounden duty of the film makers to respect the sentiments of the people and they cannot simply say that the movie is only a movie; After all the movies are only for the people.
23. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears things are not alight in Censor Board. As already discussed brutal violent scenes like blood shed, weapon wielding characters brutally attacking and murdering other characters are common the films and it is not clear as to how these violent, obscene, cruel scene are cleared by the Censor Board. This Court cannot ignore the newspaper report about the arrest of a Superior Censor Board Officer recently for taking bribe to certify films. Persons who are entrusted with onerous and public responsibilities should be above board. Any deviation would affect the society. Hence, this Court expects people with honesty, impeccable integrity, values and patriotism to be appointed to higher posts.
24. In the present day scenario, this Court hopes and expects:
a)Heroes should, as far as possible, play positive characters as the youngsters treat their heroes as "Role Models".
b)Taking into consideration of raise in sexual violence and assault on Women, it is better film makers avoid eve teasing scenes, rape scenes, obscene scenes, sexist dialogues, degrading and denigrating Women which is the need of the hour.
c) Too much of violent, gory, horror, horrible, obscene and cruel scene which are capable of affecting and corrupting human minds should be avoided.
d) Adopting illegal, violent and immoral ways and methods by the characters to achieve desired results should not be portrayed in the movies.
e) Negative titles, negative dialogues, Negative heros, Negative messages have to be consciously avoided to avoid deleterious effect, on the people.
f) Justification of violence, glorification illegal ways and means have to be avoided.
g) Glamorization of drinking and smoking should be avoided especially by the popular heroes in films, as drinking is a social evil spoiling individuals and
h) Production of films portraying, ethical values, family values, importance relationship, morality, decency, humanism patriotism etc., are need of the hour.
i) Songs loaded with moral values guiding and motivating people should be used in the movies.
j) Government should, dehors of political consideration, appoint only persons with commitment, honesty, impeccable character, social conscious, patriotism etc., as Censor Board member who are entrusted with onerous and very high responsibility.
25. It is clear that once the Censor Board clears the movie, there cannot be any other scrutiny by any other person, group etc. Otherwise it would amount to "Super Censor Board" which is extra constitutional. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the same is dismissed.
To
1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2.Ministry of Information and Board Casting, rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi.
3.The Central Board of Film Certificate, rep. by the Chief Producer, Bombay.
4.The Central Board of Film Certificate, rep. by the Chief Producer, Chennai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.