Bombay High Court
Priya Singh Paul vs Madhur Bhandarkar And 4 Ors on 24 July, 2017
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta, Anuja Prabhudessai
27_wpl_1947_2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1947 OF 2017
Priya Singh Paul
Age-48 years, Occ.: Professional,
R/o. MA-1/3,1-A, Garden Estate,
Gurugram, Haryana- 120 001 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Madhur Bhandarkar
Age-Adult, Occ.: Film Director,
having address 410, Crystal Paradise Mall,
Off. Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053
2. Bharat Shah
Age-adult, Occ.: Film Producer,
having address 410, Crystal Paradise Mall,
Off. Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053
3. Central Board of Film Certification,
3rd floor, Films Division,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003,
4. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001
5. State of Maharashtra
(Summons to be served upon Ld.
Government Pleader under Order XXVII
Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) ...Respondents
.....
Mr. Mariam Nizam Tanveer Nizam for the Petitioner.
Megha 1/9
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 :::
27_wpl_1947_2017.doc
Dr. Birendra Saraf i/b. M/s. Naik, Naik and Co. for the Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Ashish Kamat with Ms Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Ravi Suryawanshi
i/b. M/s. Naik, Naik and Co. for the Respondent No.2.
Ms Soma Singh with Ms Anamika Malhotra for the Respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the Respondent No.5-State.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATED : 24th JULY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):-
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, finally on the preliminary objections to the maintainability and entertainability of present writ petition.
2. The Petition is filed by the Petitioner, who claims to be a biological daughter of late Sanjay Gandhi, son of late Smt. Indira Gandhi and prayed as under:
"A. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the Certificate granted by Central Board of Film Certification to Film "Indu Sarkar" directed by Respondent No.1 and produced by Respondent No.2 and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Megha 2/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc grant permanent prohibitory injunction order restraining public exhibition, display and viewership of film "Indu Sarkar" in any manner till 30% facts stated by Respondent No.1 (Madhur Bhandarkar) are deleted from the film to the satisfaction of the CBFC.
B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant temporary prohibitory injunction order restraining the impugned Certificate of CBFC and public display, exhibition, release of film "Indu Sarkar" as directed by Respondent No.1 and produced by Respondent No.2 in all manners for public viewership;"
Thereby, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is made to quash and set aside the certificate granted by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to "Indu Sarkar" film. The prayer is also made for ad-interim injunction restraining the main certificate of CBFC by public displaying, exhibition and release of the film as directed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in all manners for public viewership.
3. The matter was mentioned on Friday and in view of urgency so expressed, listed for admission today. All Respondents are Megha 3/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc served. The date of release of the film is 28 th July, 2017, therefore, final hearing at admission stage itself.
4. Admittedly, this is not a Public Interest Litigation. The averments made in the Petition alongwith annexures, revolved around the undecided claimed status of the Petitioner, as reflected in paragraph 2 as under :-
2. Status of the Petitioner :-
Petitioner Mrs. Priya Singh Paul, is Indian Inhabitant and permanent resident of State of Haryana, Delhi-
NCR. The Petitioner was adopted by her adopter parents and recently the Petitioner has learnt from the reliable and genuine sources that she is a biological daughter of late Shri Sanjay Gandhi s/o.
Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India. This fact has came to knowledge of the Petitioner recently and she is in a process of contacting the family members of her biological father and seeking legal advice in the matter. The Petitioner has already sent letters to other family members requesting samples for DNA matching and Megha 4/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc response is awaited."
5. The fact based issues so raised and so the claimed relationship unless adjudicated finally by the competent court/forum, at this stage, in a writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to accept such vague averments, so raised as a foundation to pass the interim or final order, so prayed to quash and to set aside the CBFC certificate and/or restraining of order of release of the film.
6. The statement is made and not denied that there is no dispute that the descendants and/or direct relatives of late Sanjay Gandhi and/or late Smt. Indira Gandhi have not agitated any such issue against the release of the film. Therefore, the Petitioner's claim on the basis of unclear status is not acceptable and untenable.
7. Admittedly, the Expert Body, CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) constituted under the provision of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('the Act') has already issued, after due verification and after going into the contents of the film, the Censor certificate, with specific cuts, that too after due revision before the Revision Committee of CBFC. The Respondents are bound to follow it.
Megha 5/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 :::
27_wpl_1947_2017.doc
8. The process of commercial film making starts in advance. The trailers have been released on 16th June, 2017. The release date of the film was announced on 27.5.2017. The Production and marketing aspects of such film is always in the commercial background. It is going on since long. The huge amount must have been spent and invested even by the third party by entering into various connected documents/contracts. The questions of locus standi, delay, balance of convenience and equity are also against the Petitioner. Whatever rights and entitlement of the Petitioner need to be adjudicated before proper forum/Court.
9. We are dealing with the issue of granting and/or passing interim and/or final order after the CBFC Board certificate for film. The Supreme Court in Prakash Jha Productins and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors1 has observed as under:-
"In the present case, the Examining Committee of the Board had seen the film along with the experts and only after all the members of the Committee as also the two experts gave positive views on the screening of the film, thereafter only the certificate was granted. Therefore, since the expert body has already found that the aforesaid 1 (2011) 8 SCC 372 Megha 6/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc film could be screened all over the country, we find the opinion of the High-Level Committee for deletion of some of the scenes/words from the film amounted to exercising power of pre-censorship, which power is not available either to any high-level expert committee of the State or to the State Government. It appears that the State Government through the High-Level Committee sought to sit over and override the decision of the Board by proposing deletion of some portion of the film, which power is not vested at all with the State."
10. In this matter, the Court needs to consider the vague allegations about plot/story of the film on and around the particular characters during the background of specific emergency period. The facts of emergency and related reports and the books are not in dispute. It is a matter of many records. The film making itself is nothing but a creation of story/characters based upon the relative background of any of the era. The Censor Board ultimately is the authority to deal with such effect of film on the society, even in cases of stated hurting sentiments in such situation.
11. We are not expressing anything on the merits of the allegations so raised revolving around the stated statute. But we are Megha 7/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc inclined to take this unclear position to decide the Petitioner's prayers at this stage itself. The statement that the film is based upon 30% facts and 70% of fiction cannot be overlooked. The fact and the fiction just cannot be dissected. The fact and fiction combined together and the character and story is created, so the film. There is no case of judicial review, once the expert statutory authority has granted the due certificate.
12. To conclude, we are inclined to note the disclaimer in the present film/case.
13. This disclaimer in the present case is reproduced as under:-
"Disclaimer :-
"all characters and incidents portrayed and used in the film are fictitious and any resemblance to reality is pure co-incidence. Any similarity or resemblance to any person (living or dead), character or history is entirely and purely coincidental. Neither the applicant of the film nor the producer, the director, the artist or any other person associated with the film intends to outrage, insult, wound, offend or hurt any religion or religious sentiments, beliefs or feelings of any person(s), community or class of person(s) nor do they intend to malign, defame or slander any religion, country, community, person (s) or class of Megha 8/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 ::: 27_wpl_1947_2017.doc persons in anyway. The use of certain expression in the film are purely for dramatizing the performances and incidents portrayed in the film and the makers of the film and any other persons associated with the film do not support the use of such expression by any person."
14. This disclaimer is sufficient to protect the sentiments and the interest of Petitioner, if any.
15. Having once noted above, we see no reason to keep the Petition pending. We are inclined to dismiss the same at this stage itself, as it is not maintainable and entertainable also.
16. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) Megha 9/9 ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:24:22 :::