Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, vs The Union Of India, on 15 February, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
in
WRIT PETITION No.3778 of 2024
Between:-
Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress
Party, Rep. by Lella Appi reddy
.... Petitioner
And
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
and others
.... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.V.R.N. Prasanth on behalf of
Mr. L. Sai Manoj Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Jupudi Yagnadutt for
respondents 1 to 4
Mr. Unnam Muralidhar
Rao, Senior Counsel for
respondents 5 to 8.
ORDER:
This Interlocutory Application is filed for suspension of the Certificate No.DIL/2/285/2023-HYD, dated 18.12.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent, for theatrical release of the movie "Raajadhani Files" by the 5th respondent and retrain 2 the release of the same in theatres or OTT or in any form by the 5th and 6th respondents on the basis of the said certificate.
2) Heard Mr.V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Jupudi V.K. Yagna Dutt, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 8.
3) Mr. V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that in view of the ensuing elections for the State of Andhra Pradesh, with an ulterior motive to defame the petitioner and its members and to tarnish the reputation and credibility of the petitioner political party, its president and the Hon‟ble Chief Minister, political drama film named "Raajadhani Files" is made by the unofficial respondents. He submits that the characters in the movie is in regard to the issue of Three Capitals, which is pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and resembles the persons including the Hon‟ble Chief Minister as detailed in para No.6 of the writ affidavit. He submits that the theatrical political drama film was made to degrade the petitioner‟s political party and the publication of defamatory material and 3 character assassination in the subject movie will seriously prejudice the petitioner party in the upcoming State Legislative Assembly Elections.
4) He submits that though the petitioner made a representation dated 20.09.2023 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents objecting the release of the movie for the reasons stated therein, Certificate for theatrical release was granted in contravention of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder, more particularly Section 5B(2) of the Act and the Rules 22(8) & 24(9) of the Rules.
5) He submits that the right of freedom of speech and expression are subject to the right of reputation of others, and the intention in making this film is to degrade the petitioner‟s party and its members in violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6) He submits that only after watching the Trailer on 05.02.2024, the petitioner could notice that the subject matter film depicted the members of the petitioner political party, the Hon‟ble Chief Minister in a negative and defamatory 4 manner and immediately approached this Court. He submits that a look at the poster of the film would make it clear that the makers of the film are tarnishing the image of the Hon‟ble Chief Minister. He reiterates that since the movie is going to be released by 15.02.2024, when the elections to the State Assembly are in the offing, the petitioner‟s party will suffer irreparable loss. Making the said submissions he prays for suspension of the Certificate granted by the respondents 3 and 4 and to stay the release of the movie.
7) He submits that a learned single Judge of Telangana High Court dealt with the aspects of Article 21 and set aside the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certificate in respect of a film "Vyuham" and the same was upheld by the Division Bench, that it is ready for release after certification by the CBFC.
8) Mr.Yagnadutt, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, submits that the OTT, YouTube will not come under the purview of Central Board of Film Certification. He submits that the four members of the Censor Board watched the subject matter movie and recommended several changes, including the name of the film. He submits that the film 5 makers sought for review and a Revising Committee was constituted with seven members and on complying with excisions, the Board issued a U/A certificate with film in question on 18.12.2023.
9) With respect to the Petitioner‟s objections dated 20.09.2023, he submits that specific instructions are to be obtained. He submits that Certification is absolutely in consonance with the Rules, there is no violation of statutory provisions and procedure prescribed under the Act and that the Board acted within its power and the procedure contemplated. He prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
10) Mr. Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 5 to 8 submits that the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner, who is a member of the political party, has not filed any authorisation to represent the political party or to file the Writ Petition and the writ petition itself ought not to have been numbered. He submits that the representation Ex.P1 dated 20.09.2023, stated to be made by the petitioner is cooked up, no endorsement or acknowledgment and no 6 postal or courier slip is filed in proof of submission of the same to the concerned authorities.
11) He submits that the entire affidavit lacks specific details as to the defamation. He submits that it is a fictional movie and when the makers of the film applied for certificate, the CBFC suggested several cuts in the movie on 13.09.2023. Therefore, the producers sought for constitution of a Revising Committee and on 19.10.2023, a Revising Committee consisting of seven members suggested excisions and on compliance with the same U/A certificate was issued on 18.12.2023 and it was uploaded in the website on the same day.
12) He submits that the petitioner in the eleventh hour approached this Court just prior to release of the movie i.e., 15.02.2024 and therefore, no relief can be granted. Stating that the decision in "Vyuham" film is distinguishable as it is a biopic of Hon‟ble Chief Minister, case of living characters, but not fictional. He submits that in resecpt of the said movie the Examining Committee refused the certificate, but Revising Committee issued censor certificate without assigning any reasons and therefore the Hon‟ble Court interfered in the 7 matter and the same was upheld by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana.
13) In support of his contentions he relies on the following decisions:
i) Ujjwal Anand Sharma v Union of India and another 1
ii) Harinder Singh Sikka v Union of India and Ors.,2
iii) Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., and Others v Union of India and Others3
iv) Ramadhuta Creations v Telugu Desam Party4
v) Arbaaz Khan Production Pvt. Ltd., v Northstar Entertainment Pvt Ltd., and others5
vi) Tamilnadu Telugu Yuva Sakthi v Union of India6
14) He submits that in the present case, the Revising Committee after watching the movie granted certification on the producer complied with the excisions and in those circumstances, the release cannot be stopped. He submits that in view of the certification, the presumption is that the committee had taken all relevant aspects into consideration.
He also submits that there is no replica or real time 1 2017 SCC OnLine Del 2576 2 W.P. (Civil) No.313 of 2018 Supreme Court of India 3 (2018) 1 SCC 761 4 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1 (W.A.No.56 and 59 of 2024) 5 Notice of Motion (L) No.1049 of 2016 in Suit (L) No.301 of 2016 (Bombay High Court) 6 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2293 8 characters in the present movie and there would be no defamation.
15) In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the para 24 of the order dated 05.02.2024 in Ramadhuta Creations case (4 supra) of a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana submits that in the present case, the petitioner is represented by its State General Secretary and there cannot be any formidable objection for filing of the Writ Petition. He further submits that in the movie in question also there are living characters, resemblances their names and in para-6 of the Writ affidavit it is clearly stated about derogatory words used and the poster released depicts the Hon‟ble Chief Minister in negative shades, as the petitioner is being defamed and characters of their leaders are being assassinated, the present writ petition is filed.
16) Contending that how a reputation of the person is so difficult to build up and cannot be taken away with ulterior motive and irresponsible manner, he submits that it is the primary concern of the petitioner. He submits that the excisions which are annexed to the impugned certificate cannot constitute as reasons and reasons are to be recorded 9 in the specific form prescribed under the Rules i.e., Form-VIII. While stating that the same is mandatory and there is nothing to show that it has been complied with, he submits that the judgments relied by the learned Senior Counsel are distinguishable and not applicable to the present fact situation. As the reputation of the petitioner party and its leaders are at stakes, he seeks interim relief as prayed for.
17) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of rival submissions, it is the case of the petitioner that issuance of Censor Certificate in respect of the subject matter film is in violation of the provisions of the Act and infringes the rights of the petitioner as also the leaders of the petitioner political party, including the Hon‟ble Chief Minister under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
18) Whereas, it is the case of the respondents 5 to 8 that once Censor Certificate was issued, it is deemed that the Board had taken into account all the relevant aspects and the exhibition of the film, that too in the 11th hour shall not be stopped.
10
19) At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that several contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents-producers fell for consideration before the Telangana High Court in Telugu Desam Party V The Union of India and Ors.,7. Almost all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the producers herein were raised in the said case pertaining to certification of a film "Vyuham" and not accepted by the learned single Judge, who dealt with the matter from the perspective of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon‟ble Division Bench while upholding the decision of the learned single Judge modified the order to some extent. The only difference as per the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial respondents herein appears to be that the movie "Vyuham" is a biopic film, whereas the movie in question „Raajadhani Files‟ is not biopic. Further, that in the case of the film "Vyuham", the Examining Committee refused the certification, but the Revising Committee without assigning any reasons granted the certificate and the same was found fault with by the learned Judge and Censor Certificate was quashed.
7 Manu/TL/0057/2024 = WP No.34681 of 2023 (Telangana High Court) 11
20) At this juncture it may be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order of the learned single Judge of the Telangana High Court hereunder:
"35. Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21, "Reputation" of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the others right of free speech.
36. ....
37. The right to preserve ones reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem i.e., a right against the entire world. Reputation of an individual is an important part of ones life. The observations from an American decision in B.F. Marion Vs. Minnie Davis reported in 55 American LR 171 reads as follows:
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
38. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni reported in MANU/SC/0184/1982MANU/SC/0184/1982 : (1983) 1 SCC 124 observed that the right to reputation is a facet of Right to Life of a Citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
39. .....
40. It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve one's reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority in discharge of its duties 12 fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter.
41. ....
42. This Court opines that film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party or institution. Reputation is the only jewel that cannot be bought and is built over the years and a person who is robbed of it is no less than a destitute.
21) With regard to the delay in approaching the Court, in the above said judgment, the learned Judge at para-10 negatived the same holding that "the delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to veto an action under Article 226 when violation of fundamental rights is clearly at stake". Further, with reference to Rule 24 (9) and Form-VIII as set out in the 2nd Schedule of the Rules, the learned Judge at Para No.29 of the judgment held as follows:
"29. A bare perusal of Form VIII set out in the Second Schedule extracted above clearly indicates that a duty is cast upon the Revising Committee to examine and ensure that there would be no infraction of the Guidelines if the film is granted a certificate for its release, after watching/examining the movie and judging the same in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact and thereafter only certify the same for exhibition duly recording and spelling out in clear terms the reasons there for as 13 stipulated under Rule 24, Clause 9 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983."
22) The learned Judge after perusing the original record had recorded a categorical finding that the Revising Committee consisting of 10 members had not recorded even a single reason and while holding that the decision making authority has not applied its mind and issued the certificate in respect of the film Vyuham, contrary to the Rules 22(8); 24 (6); 24(9) and Section 5B of the Act and Guideline No.2 (viii) allowed the Writ Petition.
23) In Ramadhuta Creations case (4 supra), the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court vide order dated 05.02.2024, agreed with the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge. At para No.31 it is held as follows:
"31. We have perused the record of the Revising Committee produced by learned Additional Solicitor General of India. The Revising Committee has not assigned any reasons for granting „U‟ certificate to the movie with excisions. Therefore, the action of the Revising Committee in granting „U‟ certificate to the movie with excisions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is in contravention of the Rule 24(9) of the Certification Rules. In view of preceding analysis, it is held that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons while granting „U‟ certificate to the movie with excisions. It is 14 further held that no reasons have been assigned by the Revising Committee while granting „U‟ certificate to the movie with excisions."
24) In the present case, it is also one of the contentions that the Revising Committee has not assigned any reasons while granting U/A certificate to the subject matter film. Irrespective of representation by the petitioner, it is for the CBFC to ensure before issuing the Censor Certificate that all the requirements of the Act and the Rules are compiled with.
25) As to whether the certificate of release of the film by the Revising Committee was done by assigning reasons as required under Rules is to be examined by verification of the record. Therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to produce the record pertaining to Examining Committee and Revising Committee in respect of the subject matter film for perusal of this Court on 16.02.2024 without fail.
26) Viewing the matter from the perspective of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and considering the plea that irreparable prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, there shall be stay of exhibition of the subject matter movie, in the 15 meanwhile. List on 16.02.2024 in the Motion List under the Caption "For Production of Records‟.
_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date:15.02.2024.
Ssv 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A.No.1 of 2024 in WRIT PETITION No.3778 of 2024 Date:15.01.2024 ssv