Madras High Court
M/S.Vishva Hindu Parishad Tamil Nadu vs The Chair Person on 27 April, 2015
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.04.2015
Coram:-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.Raja
W.P.No.12578 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
M/s.Vishva Hindu Parishad Tamil Nadu
shortly referred to as VHP rep by its
organising Secretary Mr.S.Raja,
No.12/43, Ramanujam Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chair Person,
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC),
No.26, 5th Floor, Sastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
4.M/s.Thirupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd.,
rep by its Director,
No.16, Lay Max Street,
Janaki Nagar, Valasaravakkam,
Chennai 600 087.
5.Mr.Ramesh Arvind
6.Mr.Kamal Hassan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to direct the respondents 4 to 6 to delete the word btf;f';bfl;L from the derogatory reference i.e., btf;f';bfl;L gd;wpa[k; jhk; vd;wtd; flt[s; from the song starts with vd; cjp[uj;jpd; tpij under the theme Iraniyan Naadagam in the Tamil feature film Uttama Villan which is yet to be released.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muthukumaran
for M/s.Pass Associates
For RR-2 and 3 : Mr.A.Kumar,
Spl.Govt. Pleader (R2 and R3)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by Vishva Hindu Parishad-Tamil Nadu, represented by its Organising Secretary-S.Raja.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by stating that every Religion is based on faith, in that, some do believe that their Messiah was born to a Virgin while others believe that depiction of their Prophet is forbidden, would submit that Hinduism is unique in its character where everything in the Universe, whether it is tree or squirrel, cow or crow, monkey or peacock and so on, is worshiped as the embodiment of God. Also, the Hindu religion believes that gods take avatars/incarnation at different ages in order to establish dharma-justice and extinguish adharma-injustice. One such avatar ie., 3rd in the Dashavatara (10 avatars) of Lord Vishnu, is Varaha meaning Pig/Bore. There are temples built for the deity of Varaha and Hindus worship Varaha by performing pooja, ceremonies, festivals etc.
3. After so submitting, learned counsel would state that R-4 has produced a movie titled Uttama Villain, directed by R-5 & casted by the 6th respondent as a leading Artist, and though the said film is going to be screened in Theaters on the 1st of May 2015, the songs of the movie have been released recently. In one of the songs, commencing with the lyrics vd; cjp[uj;jpd; tpij, while describing various avatars, the 6th respondent/Lyricist & Singer deliberately and intentionally criticized that Lord Vishnu has shamelessly proclaimed himself as pig/boar. Such a projection in the lyrics is not only a clear demonizing of Lord Vishnu but also such text defames, insults and maligns the unassailable faith and belief of Hindus, more particularly, the devotees worshiping Lord Vishnu. With that grievance, even though representations, dated 06.04.2014, seeking to delete the derogatory and objectionable contents in the lyrics, were made to the authorities, the 1st respondent, while certifying the film Uttama Villain, abruptly failed to adhere to the mandate as laid down in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which clearly states, 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 it likely to incite the commission of any offence. According to the learned counsel, R-1 to R-3 whimsically ignored the representation and their action is apparent that they would not mind release of the movie even with the existing objectionable contents in the lyrics; hence, the petitioner has come to this Court. At any rate, he would submit that, if the only one word btf;f';bfl;L, which is a derogatory term, is deleted from the said song, the petitioner will not have any grievance.
4. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R2 and R3.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Goddess Bhudevi (Earth) and the great sages prayed Lord Vishnu to come and protect the Earth at a time when the inhabitants on the Earth were using devastating weapons against each other causing the earth unsafe for living and, in the meanwhile, a Demon called Hiranyaksha, unmindful of the violence, desired to become more powerful and prayed to Lord Brahma for a boon that he shall not be defeated by any man, gods or animals. While listing out the names of the animals which should not defeat him, he forgot to mention about the boar/pig as an animal that could kill him. But, after getting the boon, the said Demon started tormenting the people on the earth. Finally, when the demon Hiranyaksha stole the earth viz., Bhudevi, and hid her in the primordial waters, Lord Vishnu appeared taking Varaha/Boar incarnation since Boar alone could pierce into the Earth. Finally, Varaha avatar slew the demon and retrieved the Earth from the Ocean. By referring to this condensed episode of Varaha incarnation, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent should not have composed the text to the effect that Lord Vishnu/Varaha had no shame to take the incarnation as Bore/Pig, thereby, harm has been done to the sentiments of Hindus. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a direction to delete the word btf;f';bfl;L from the Lyrics, with an observation that such term is a pure derogatory reference.
6. The only issue needs to be considered by this Court is as to whether the term shamelessly is deliberately employed by the 6th respondent to denigrate the deity incarnated as Varaha and thereby, the feelings & sentiments of the Hindu community have been harmed; or, on the contrary, is it a overzealous understanding of the petitioner due to viewing the artistic work with a narrow mind and prejudicial approach?
7. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression and, in its wide realm, such guarantee also spreads over even to creativities including artistic works. In the case on hand, it is the message conveyed in the Lyrics, particularly through the alleged offending text, that the deity did not feel shame for the incarnation as a pig/boar. Swami Vivekananda, in one of his discourses, while portraying various incarnations of Lord Vishnu, had advocated the young Indian youths to visit the Parthasarathi Temple at Triplicane to impress upon them that Lord Vishnu had become Parthasarathi/Charioteer (in Tamil Therotti) to help his devotee-Arjuna in the war against Adharma/injustice; thereby, the message conveyed in Githa Upathesam itself is that Lord Vishnu would never hesitate to incarnate in any form, be it the meek form of a Charioteer, when such incarnation is required to help and aid his true devotees at times of misery and adversity. The Hindu Community venerates various incarnations of Lord Vishnu including that of a Therotti/Charioteer and no one feels or argues that such description of Lord Vishnu as a mean therotti affects the sentiments of Hindu devotees. Similarly, the third incarnation of Lord Vishnu being Varaha/Pig/Boar, the 6th respondent/Lyricist, in an attempt to convey the message in the simplest form that Lord Vishnu would come down to any mean level (without feeling shame), even to the extent of taking incarnation as a Boar in order to restore and establish righteousness/Dharma, wherever and whenever occasions warrant, seemed to have used the referred dialect as found in the lyrics. Such an endeavor, in my considered opinion, to transmit the actuality behind the incarnation to the commoner, cannot be painted differently, particularly when the intention is right and meant only to simplify the underlying message.
8. While the Christians refer the Lord as Universal Christ and the Muslims as All-powerful and All-Merciful Allah, the Almighty, in Hindu Dogma, Lord Vishnu, who is omnipresent in all beings - whether Holy or Unholy - pillar or fragment; who is all-pervading divine consciousness beyond gods; and who came to save Dharma and to re-orient it on its proper base; himself chose the third incarnation of Varaha/Pig. When the intention of Lord Vishnu to descend to the meanest form without even feeling shame is so plainly transmitted through the local dialect, cried now to be denigrating the sentiments, only to enable the common man to understand the message behind the incarnation, the negative arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the words btf;f';bfl;L gd;wpa[k; jhk; vd;wtd; flt[s in the song vd; cjp[uj;jpd; tpij that the said dialect carries derogatory reference and thereby, it has the effect of affecting the sentiments of Hindus and devotees, are so absurd to attract any justification and hence, the entire spectrum of the submissions advanced in that perspective is to be discarded as wholly untenable. Therefore, the expression made as a Lyricist by R-6 from his thoughtful imagination that Lord Vishnu, without feeling shame, took the incarnation as pig/boar, plainly conveys the reality that the Deity did not bother or feel shame about stooping to incarnate as a mean bore when such incarnation was so warranted to help his devotees. While the actual state of affairs stand thus, this Court sitting under equity jurisdiction cannot put any unnecessary restriction on the lyricist from presenting the outcome of his imagination in the matter of religion as, in a way, the artistic work is his own intellectual property. Therefore, by making it clear that no freedom is absolute and any sort of freedom is subject to reasonable restriction and that every case has to be adjudged on its own facts, in the case on hand where the text, as broadly mentioned above, only conveys the actuality behind the avatar in an ordinary dialect, thereby attempting to give the plain message to the commoner and further, no lexicon having any parallel description to the word 'shameless' as obscene or unparliamentary, in my considered view, the writ asked for, if granted in unwarranted cases like the present one, ultimately, would result not only in bringing the growth of arts and creativity to a grinding halt but also in unreasonably restricting the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the alleged text, to the reading of any prudent mind, does not even suggest any sort of denigration or disparagement, the argument advanced by referring to Section-5B of the Cinematograph Act also, carries no merit at all.
9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no good reason to grant the prayer sought for. Hence, the writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
27.04.2015
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on or before 29.04.2015.
vsm
T.RAJA, J.
vsm
To
1.The Chair Person,CBFC,
No.26, 5th Floor, Sastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai 7.
W.P.No.12578 of 2015
27.04.2015