Karnataka High Court
Mr Sameem Raza vs Central Board Of Film Certification ... on 3 January, 2020
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 52922 OF 2019 (CINEMA - PIL)
BETWEEN:
MR. SAMEEM RAZA
S/O LATE ZAMEER HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.47, 1ST FLOOR,
KEB COLONEY, UDAYAGIRI
MYSORE - 570 019. .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC)
MUMBAI FILMS DIVISION COMPLEX
PHASE - I BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR
Dr.G. DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 026
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. HIROO JOHAR
FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE MAJOR.
3. ARUNA BHATIA
FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE MAJOR.
4. KARAN JOHAR
FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE MAJOR
-2-
5. APOORVA MEHTA
FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE MAJOR.
6. SHASHANK KHAITAN
FATHER'S NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
AGE MAJOR.
(RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 6 ARE
THE PRODUCERS OF THE FILM,
SERVICE OF COURT NOTICE MAY
BE EFFECTED WITH THEM AT
''DHARMA PRODUCTION''
UNIT No.201 AND 202, 2ND FLOOR,
SUPREME CHAMBERS
17/18 SHAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
OFF VEERA DESAI ROAD
ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA-400053.
ALSO AT CAPE OF GOOD FILMS
No.101, 1ST FLOOR, 'A' WING
BHARAT ARK, AMBIVALI AZAD NAGAR
VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST)
MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY, MAHARASTRA
STATE.
7. ESSEL VISION PRODUCTION LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
CONTINENTAL BUILDING, 135
Dr. ANNIE BESANT ROAD
WORLI, MUMBAI-400018
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE
AT FUN REPUBLIC, LEVEL 4
LAKSHMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OFF LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST)
MUMBAI - 400053, REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
Ms.DHANYA NANDAKUMAR. .. RESPONDENTS
(R-7 HAS BEEN IMPLEADED VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 27.12.2019)
(BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NARAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6,
SRI PARTHA MANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (NOC NOT FILED)
SRI B.RAJENDRA PRASAD FOR R7,
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R1)
-3-
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION, FORBIDDING OR
STOPPING THE INTENDING RELEASING AND SCREENING OF
THE MOVIE BY NAME `GOOD NEWS' IN THE THEATRES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON 27.12.2019,
DIRECT THAT, THE CONTENTS OF THE MOVIE BY NAME
'GOODNEWS' PRODUCED BY THE R-2 TO 6 AFFECTS HUMAN
SENSIBILITIES AND TEND TO CAUSE SCORN, DISGRACE OR
DISREGARD OR UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE ASSISTED
CONCEPTION CENTERS OTHER THAN THE ONE REFERRED IN
THE MOVIE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SCREEN THE
DISCLAIMER MAKING IT CLEAR THAT, NORTHING IN THE
MOVIE INTEND TO CAUSE SCORN, DISGRACE OR DISREGARD
OR UNDERMINE THAT DIGNITY OF THE ASSISTED
CONCEPTION CENTERS OTHER THAN THE ONE REFERRED IN
THE MOVIE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by this petition in the nature of public interest litigation.
2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of prohibition, forbidding or stopping the release and screening of the movie by the name "Good News" in the theatres across the country on 27th December, 2019. The second prayer is for declaration that the contents of the movie by name "Good News" produced by the second to sixth respondents affect human sensibilities and tend to cause scorn, disgrace or disregard or undermine -4- the dignity of the assisted conception centers other than the one referred in the movie or in the alternative; the third prayer is for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to screen the disclaimer making it clear that, nothing in the movie intends to cause scorn, disgrace or disregard or undermine the dignity of the assisted conception centers other than the one referred in the movie.
3. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we must note here the relevant averments made in the petition, which are in paragraphs 13, 14, 21 and 22, which read thus:
"13. It is submitted that, Indira IVF one of the fertility service provider, It appears that, the centre has extended its extended hand in whatever means in producing the movie. In the guise of reciprocate the gesture, the producers ensured that, the leading actors of the film collectively make a declaration of the aforesaid nature and consequently, the business of the Indra IVF may flourish.
14. Petitioner has absolutely no reservation for somebody making an effort to increase the credibility of Indira IVF but not at the cost of the others in the field. The producers of the film are well within their rights to give publicity to Indira IVF but not by indirectly stating that, the procedure of IVF in other centres run by different people are not safe. The declaration indirectly states that, there will be a chance and there will be confusion regarding the mixing up of sperms and eggs in the centres other than Indira IVF. Possibility of people in general questioning the correctness of assisted pregnancy at -5- the other centres with the patients who have already availed the service from those centres. This will affect the very fabric of the society. Moreover, the declarations have been made by the people (actors) who have large and incredible following in the society. There are every chance that the people considering their declaration has gospel truth without understanding the nitty gritty of the procedures.
21. In addition to the above, the contents of the trailer/promos virtually forcing and coxing the patients to take service only with the Indira IVF centers. The contents also indirectly declare that, the possibility of mixing or exchanging the sperms in the centers other than Indira IVF centers. The visuals and words spoken in the movie affects human sensibilities and the public order is endangered. Hence the interference of this Hon'ble Court is just and necessary.
22. The visuals and words involve defamation of other IVF centers in India and in the process it tend to cause scorn, disgrace or disregard or undermine the dignity of those centers. Hence there was no justification for the 3rd respondent to certify the movie and allow the producers to screen the movie with the aforesaid contents."
(underline supplied)
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the movie, which is already released, there is no disclaimer that there is no intention to promote only one assisted conception centers mentioned in paragraph -13 of the petition and that there is no intention to cause disgrace to other centers. He states that only clarification made is that it is a fiction. He submitted that the movie projects that the center mentioned in paragraph -13 is the only good facility available and -6- therefore, those who have gone to the other assisted conception centers will be questioned by the people after watching the movie.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent states that a censor certificate has been issued by the Central Board of Certification for the said movie.
6. We have considered the submissions. We may note here that now the movie has already been released. The averments made in the petition, which we have quoted and highlighted in paragraph - 3 above, indicate that though this petition is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks to represent the cause of several assisted conception centers other than the one mentioned in paragraph
- 13 of the petition.
7. Apart from fundamental right available to the producer and the director under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, of the freedom of speech and expression, we do not think that even assuming that whatever allegations made in the petition are correct, any couple, which intends to avail the benefit of IVF, will form an opinion on the choice of centre only on the basis of one movie. Moreover, it is a matter of common -7- knowledge that there are large number of such assisted conception centers all over the country. It is impossible to accept that because of the movie, the couples, which have gone to other assisted conception centers will be questioned by people. For any couple to choose IVF center is a serious business. We do not think that the choice of IVF center will be affected by only one movie, which has a very short life. It is a matter of common knowledge many of such movies come and go. What is depicted in the movie is forgotten with the passage of time.
8. This petition, which is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation appears to be filed for espousing the cause of the assisted conception centers other than the center referred in paragraph - 13 of the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm