Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Rama Brahmam vs Central Board Of Film Certification, ... on 16 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT401
Author: M.H.S. Ansari
Bench: M.H.S. Ansari
ORDER M.H.S. Ansari, J.
1. Heard Sri S.R. Sanku, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Bhaskara Mohan, Addl. CGSC for Respondents 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner is one of the Councillors in the Chilakaluripeta Municipality, Guntur District. He is arrayed as Accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 68 of 1997 on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in Cr. No. 60 of 1997 and stands charged for offences Under Section s 120-B, 381, 411, 420 read with 120-B IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is one of the persons responsible for the leakage of Intermediate question paper for the Academic year March, 1997. The trial in the said case has not commenced yet. The petitioner claims innocence in respect of the charges levelled against him. Meanwhile, a film, titled "Veedera Police" (in Telugu) produced by Respondent No. 7 was programmed for release on 30-8-1997 through out the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. According to the petitioner certain objectionable scenes pertaining to the petitioner are depicted in the said film as informed to him by the persons who have seen the said film "Veedera Police". The petitioner's contention with respect to the objectionable portion of the scene in the said film as averred to in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as under:
"6.1 submit that in the Film my name is shown as Veera Brahmam and the film recklessly shows the name of another character as Pothi Naidu directly. The character Veera Brahmam is shown to be resembling that of mine whereas the character Pothinaidu is shown to be resembling that of Advocate Pothinaidu of Anakapalli Bar. Both Rama Brahmam and Pothinaidu are shown to be watching the Television wherein the News relating to the Question Papers leakage of Intermediate is Telecast. In the Telecast, it is announced that those who captured Veerabrahmam are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the incentive. At that juncture Veerabrahmam is shown to express his fears about his being arrested. Then Advocate Pothinaidu takes Veerabrahmam to a secret hideout. Then Inspector Ugra Narasimham rings up Advocate Pothinaidu in the voice of Veerabrahmam and tells Advocate Pothinaidu that he (Veerabrahmam) wants to surrender before the Police. Then Advocate Pothinaidu tries to persuade Veerabrahmam, that if he surrenders himself he will be arrested. However, Veerabrahmam requests Advocate Pothinaidu to come over to his place of hideout. In fact as stated above, it is Inspector Ugra Narasimham, that speaks over the Telephone in the voice of Veerabrahmam and convinces Advocate Pothinaidu as though Veerabrahmam himself spoke to him. Then Advocate Pothinaidu reaches the Secret hideout but to his surprise he finds there Inspector Ugra Narasimham who kicks Advocate Pothinaidu on his back with his boot knocking down both Advocate Pothinaidu and Veerabrahmam. Thereafter Inspector Ugra Narasimham drags Veerabrahmam along the streets of Charminar, flogging him and parading him, puts him in the cell and beats him there also block and boot (sic. black and blue) besides using filthy language and taking out confession statements of Veerabrahmam. Like that many other scenes are shown against Veerabrahmam and Advocate Pothinaidu. One more interesting facet of the film is that the Commissioner of Police (city unknown) is also shown to be one of the accused in the Question paper leakage of Intermediate who is shown to be in connivance with Veerabrahmam."
According to the petitioner, the depiction of the characters of Advocate Pothinaidu, Veerabrahmam and Commissioner of Police are highly shocking and derogatory more particularly depiction of the petitioner's character in the said film. It is submitted that the film has taken undue liberty in using the petitioner's name and thereby transgressing the right of privacy and showing the petitioner in derogatory light and in an objectionable and offensive manner. The petitioner, therefore seeks a direction in the nature of Mandamus for deleting the objectionable scenes from the said film linked with the character of the petitioner or with the incidents relating to Intermediate question paper leakage.
4. Although the writ petition was filed before the said film "Veedera Police" was slated for public viewing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it had been already released for viewing and was viewed by many people in neighbouring States, the same has since been released in this State as well. The question is whether its public viewing or the objectionable portions to which reference has been made above, need to be deleted for viewing by the public.
5. Sri S. Sanku, learned Counsel for the petitioner has based his claim for the relief in the above writ petition on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this Country by Article 21. It is a right "to be let alone".
6. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal @ A.R. Gopal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., has summarised the broad principles with regard to the right to privacy with reference to publications in magazines or Newspapers. What is applicable to a writing in Newspapers or news magazines would equally apply to the film/television media. While holding that no prior restraint or prohibition of publication can be imposed, at the instance of the Government or persons who apprehend that they may be defamed, it was held that the remedy, if any, will arise only after the publication. It is considered relevant to extract one such broad principle enumerated by the Supreme Court in that case. It reads as under :
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent - whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so. he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy"
7. The instant case is not one where the Court is called upon to examine the film and judge whether its public display, in the given time and clime, so breaches public morals or depraves basic decency. The question here is not entirely based on whether human sensibilities are offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity. The question is one whether the offending portions are derogatory to the petitioner as alleged by him. The averments as contained in the affidavit and more particularly those to which reference has been made supra can at best be construed to give rise to an actionable claim in so far as the film depicts the character of or concerning the petitioner.
8. Whether the film and its makers meant and intended to refer to the petitioner or inferentially the viewer of the film is led to believe that the characters do in fact refer or intend to refer to the petitioner. The reference to the petitioner is false or malicious and intended to defame the petitioner. These are all questions which need to be established before the relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner. These are questions of fact and have accordingly to be agitated before a Court of competent jurisdiction and not by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As held in Bobby Art International and Ors. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon and Ors., that once a certificate under the Cinematograph Act is issued, the Penal Code, pro tanto, will not hang limp. Also, if right to privacy is violated, the aggrieved is not without remedy. The petitioner is thus not without remedy, but his remedy is elsewhere (civil/criminal) and not in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
9. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty, however, to the petitioner to avail of the efficacious alternative remedy available to him in law and if so advised.