Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nawabzada Shadab Ali Bahadur vs Union Of India on 14 December, 2015
WP-21380-2015
(NAWABZADA SHADAB ALI BAHADUR Vs UNION OF INDIA)
14-12-2015
Shri L. S. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Rakesh
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J. K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for
respondent no. 1.
Challenging release of a film title âBajirao Mastaniâ, this writ petition is filed and pointing out that in the movie in question, certain objectionable material pertaining to petitioner and his family is being depicted, this writ petition is filed for restraining release of the film in question.
Shri J. K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India invites my attention to Annexure P-4 dated 30th November, 2015 passed by the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification and argues that in the absence of any complaint being made to the Censor Board, this writ petition is not maintainable.
However, Shri L. S. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel argues that a complaint has been made, it has not been taken cognizance of and by filing an unsigned and uncertified document at page 37, it is tried to be indicated that film is scheduled to be released on 18th December, 2015. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that earlier also on the same ground W. P. No. 14809/15 was filed and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition by so observing :-
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to supply the script of the film namely Peshwa Bajirao Mastani to the petitioner as well as to make the aforesaid film a true historical event. When a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has an effective remedy under Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted the liberty to approach the competent authority under Rule 32 of the aforesaid Rules.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner approaches the competent authority under Rule 32 of the Rules, the complaint which shall be preferred by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Thereafter, when the petitioner filed a complaint, the Film Censor Board decided the matter vide Annexure P-4 by indicating the following facts :-
This is with reference to your above mentioned complaint requesting for not granting certificate to the film âBajirao Mastaniâ. It is submitted that the application for certification of the film âBajirao Mastaniâ has so far not been received by this office. As and when the said application is received for certification care shall be taken to see that the guidelines laid down under the Act are followed.
Now, there is no material to show that the film has been certified for its screening, therefore, merely on the basis of some uncertified document said to have received by the office, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Once, the Film Censor Board has indicated to the petitioner that his claim shall be considered in accordance with the guidelines, I see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the petition is dismissed.
C. C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE