Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.V. Mallikarjuna Rao And Another vs Department Of Home, And Others on 29 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995AP359
ORDER
1. This is a public interest litigation initialed by two practising advocates espousing cause of judiciary for deleting the two offending scenes in the feature film 'Gentleman', which was produced in Telugu, Tamil and Hindi languages. The two offending scenes objected by the petitioners are: (1) the Judge presiding the Court stands up and says Namaskars to the Chief Minister when he enters the Court hall on being called at the instance of the hero, who was made accused and who accuses the Chief Minister, and (2) the statue of Goddess of Justice holding scales containing currency notes.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 5-12-1994 and notices were issued to the respondents. As on that day, this Court (incidentally I was the admission Judge) was not aware of the said scenes and there was difficulty in passing orders without there being uncontroverted fact. Now a counter is filed sworn in by one Mr. D. Kailasa Prasad, Director, Central Board of Film Certification, 5th respondent herein and also on behalf of respondents 4 and 6 herein, viz., the Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that the film is a fictitious presentation and the same is presented under guidelines issued under Sec. 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act and guideline 2(viii) governing the situation and that the film was viewed by the Examining Committee and was certified for public exhibition as the committee has not seen any scorn, disgrace or disregard of rules or undermine the dignity of Court in the above scenes mentioned. The counter affidavit says "in the scene referred to, it is admitted that the Judge rises up and gives Namaste signal to the Chief Minister. However, it is denied that this visual is derogatory to the institution of judiciary". The depiction of scene of statue of Goddess of Justice holding the scales with currency notes is not disputed and no comment is made about that. Having said so, it is pleaded in the counter that "this respondent submits that the members of the committee, who examined the film, are not conversant with the nuances of the courts. However, they apply their mind as, individuals of ordinary commonsense and, therefore, it is possible that in the process certain fine issues of court protocols and court rules have been missed. This, however, does not mean that there is any attempt by the executive to tarnish the judiciary by showing it as something inferior or subordinate to the executive. It is also denied that any impression is created in the minds of the public that the judiciary as an institution is impaired because of the visuals referred to". The counter affidavit again pleads pardon stating "this respondent further submits that this office or any other officials associated with the certification of the film have no intention to malign or bring disrepute to the judiciary in any way. It is also humbly submitted that this office shall submit itself to any order of the Hon'ble Court to modify or delete any of the visuals which the Hon'ble Court may find derogatory or demoralising to the judiciary."
3. At the outset, I must say that the pleas made in the counter-affidavit are not in proper perspective. In spite of committing grave, mistakes, it is intriguing that respondents 4 to 6 tried to defend the offending scenes. In all fairness, respondents 4 to 6 ought to have pleaded pardon instead of defending the scenes and then seeking pardon, that too, conditionally if the scenes are felt as offending. I take serious note of the conduct of respondents 4 to 6 in this regard.
4. Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") was enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of films. The right to exhibit films may be a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression traceable to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India; but the same is circumscribed by reasonable restrictions placed under Art. 19(2) thereof. Section SB of the Act incorporates the said reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution and the guidelines, which have been issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers contained under S. 5B(2) have to conform to the said statutory requirements, which are traceable to Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. The above two offending scenes certainly come within the prohibition contained under S. SB of the Act. The Goddess of Justice holding even scales connotes the fair and equal justice administered by the Court, but the currency notes placed in the said scales means otherwise and that too glaringly that the Court is corrupt and that justice is not administered on facts of the case and the law governing the same, but for money considerations; This is derogatory to the cause of justice denigrating the courts. It is nothing but scandalizing the Court as a corrupt institution, corrupting the minds of our cine-goers that the justice in the Court can be purchased. Equally the other scene, Judge rising when a Chief Minister comes into the Court in connection with the case tried by him and wishing him Namaskars is also highly objectionable. No doubt, cinema is a fiction and it may have flashbacks and several other scenes relating to the story and events, but it cannot distort with regard to court procedure. A Judge presiding over a Court never rises no matter how big a person is or the'position held by him. When a Judge sits and adjudicates the matter, whoever comes into the Court has to bow before him in honour of the institution of justice. Showing the scene in a reverse manner, as Judge standing up and making salute to a Chief Minister, who comes into the Court in connection with a case, be it an accused or witness, is derogatory to the high office of a Judge holding the Court for adjudicatory process. The above scene only means that the Judges are so vulnerable that if a Chief Minister or a person holding high office enters the Court hall, be it as an accused or witness, they feel subservient. There is no such procedure known to law and there is no such incident, but it is distorted in the above scene and the same is highly offending one. It certainly creates an impression in the minds of the cine-goers that a Judge presiding over a Court of law is a subordinate to the executive Government held by the Chief Minister. Such an impression is dangerous to the independence of judiciary as the people will lose faith in the institution of Justice and the justice delivery system itself.
5. The judiciary is one of the important pillars of democracy erected by Rule of law, which is designed to protect the value of human rights. It is needless to mention that democracy should conform to Rule of law. Freedom of free society does not mean that anything and everthing can be done by the citizens or the State as they please. If the freedom is not regulated, it will turn out to be gall and wormwood to the people who gave their representatives the power to rule and govern them. In democratic set up, this is sought to be achieved by appointing a guardian of the Constitution and the laws and the task of this guardian is to keep the law-making and the executive limbs of Government from breaking through the bounds of the people's will. The name of this guardian is Judiciary. Such a judiciary can never be humbled and humiliated and the offending scenes mentioned supra tend to do so and as such, have got to be deleted. It is the duty of the constitutional court like this, if invited to do so, to make known the people that Rule of law means the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws and that none is above the law and whenever any act is invalid on the touchstone of the Constitution, the same shall be declared as guilty of transgression of fundamental laws, and that it is essential to our free society that the people, lay and professional alike hold the Judgeship in the higest esteem that they regard it as a symbol of impartial, fair and equal justice under law and to cherish the Courts of law as respectable institutions.
6. Before parting with the case, I have got a strong objection to the mode and manner of appointment of persons in the pleasure posts. May be Censor Board and the committees, under the Cinematograph Act and the Rules thereunder, are pleasure posts, but that does not mean that it is a rehabilitation centre to accommodate the persons of choice by the Government. The very purpose of Censor Board and the Committees is to view the film and judge as to whether it conforms to the limits set by the Constitution, statute and the guidelines and there is no place for illiterate, uneduacted or under educated for being members of the Censor Board or committees. Persons with proper knowledge and experience should adorn the Censor Board and Committees as the themes of the films may vary and some times it may have medical or legal aspect -- then it is desirable to have persons possessing sufficient knowledge in that field and it is desirable to have a retired Judge or Advocate, who can spare time to be member of the Censor Board and the committees and be a participant whenever the court scenes are enacted.
7. Having regard to the above, the scenes depicting the currency notes in the scales of Goddess of Justice and the Judge rising when the Chief Minister comes and salutes him, shall be removed from the film 'GENTLEMAN', be it in Telugu, Tamil or Hindi, and the same shall not be screened either in Theatres or telecast in T.V. visuals.
8. The writ petition is "allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
9. I appreciate the endeavour of the petitioners for espousing the cause of justice.
10. Petition allowed.