Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios And 4 Ors on 8 March, 2022

Author: M. S. Karnik

Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik

                                                   902-PIL(L).6529.2022


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

  PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO. 6529 OF 2022
                       WITH
       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 947 OF 2022

Intezar Hussain Sayed                  }   Petitioner
         Versus
Zee Studios and Ors.                   }   Respondents


Mr. Arvind D. Aswani for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate with Mr. Hiren
Kamod, Mr. Nidhish Mehrotra, Ms. Anushree
Rauta, Ms. Viveka Truman i/by Viveka Truman &
Global Inc., for respondent no. 1.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, senior advocate with Mr.
Rashmin Khandekar, Ms. Hemangi Abhyankar,
Mr. Vikramaditya Chavan & Ms. Viveka Truman
i/by Viveka Truman & Global Inc., for
respondent no. 3.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General
with Mr. Advait Sethna, Ms. Anusha Amin, Mr.
D.P. Singh, Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Pranav
Thakkar for respondent-Union of India.
Mr. Prashant Mishra with Ms. Pragya Mishra and
Ms. Priyanka Lokhande for applicant in
IA/947/2022.

                          CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                 M. S. KARNIK, J.

                          DATE:        MARCH 8, 2022

P.C.:

1. This PIL petition is at the instance of an individual, who is a resident of Uttar Pradesh. A movie titled "The Kashmir Files", produced and directed by the respondents 1 to 3, is scheduled for a release in halls/theatres on 11th March 2022.

J.V.Salunke, PS 902-PIL(L).6529.2022 The petitioner claims that the trailer of the movie reveals several scenes, which would tend to hurt the religious feelings of the people of India, more particularly the Muslim community. Also, inflammatory scenes contained in the movie have the potential of causing communal violence in the country. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks an order on the respondents 1 to 3:

(a) to pull down/delete the trailer from YouTube and other social media platforms forthwith; and

(b) to modify/delete the scenes that are discriminatory in nature.

as well as direction on the respondent no. 4:

(c) to carefully scrutinize the dialogues of the entire movie before issuing certificate for the film.

2. Upon the writ petition being moved by Mr. Aswani, learned advocate for the petitioner, we had inquired of Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 as to whether the Central Board of Film Certification (hereafter "the CBFC", for short) had granted certificate in terms of section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 for public viewing. Responding to such query, Mr. Kadam placed before us a certificate dated 3rd November 2021 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the CBFC, Mumbai permitting screening of the movie. It also appears that after voluntary deletions/additions were sought to be made by the applicant after certification, an endorsement was made on 28th February 2022 recording the deletions/additions. The documents placed by Mr. Kadam are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

J.V.Salunke, PS 902-PIL(L).6529.2022

3. Having perused the said documents, we inquired of the petitioner as to whether the remedy made available by Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 has been pursued by him or not. Mr. Aswani answered that the remedy made available by Rule 32 is nothing more than an alternative statutory remedy, which is not an efficacious remedy and, therefore, the petitioner did not avail the same. It is, however, his submission that notwithstanding the fact that there is an alternative remedy, this Court ought to entertain this PIL petition without relegating the petitioner to pursue such alternative remedy since Article 226 in terms does not oust the jurisdiction of the writ court if an alternative remedy is indeed available and more so because this is a public interest litigation to which the rule of alternative remedy should not apply.

4. We next inquired of Mr. Aswani as to whether the machinery introduced by the Right to Information Act, 2005 had been invoked to ascertain whether the movie had been certified by the CBFC or not, since prayer (c) of the writ petition suggested that certificate had not been issued. Mr. Aswani answered in the negative.

5. Having ascertained the preliminary facts as above, we permitted Mr. Aswani to argue. He argued on the pleaded lines.

6. After Mr. Aswani concluded, we put to him whether the petitioner had looked into our judgment and order dated 23 rd February 2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 4336 of 2022 (Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs. Bhansali 3 J.V.Salunke, PS 902-PIL(L).6529.2022 Production and Ors.) together with connected petitions. Although Mr. Aswani answered in the affirmative, the contentions urged by him reflected a total lack of appreciation of what we held in such judgment while spurning a similar challenge that was laid prior to release of the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi". The ratio of the judgment dated 23rd February 2022 squarely applies in the facts and circumstances, more particularly the contents of paragraphs 23 to 28 and 36.

7. We do not see reason to take a different view having regard to the similarity of concern expressed by the petitioner. There is no merit in this PIL petition, which, accordingly, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. In view of above, the interim application for intervention does not survive and stands disposed of as such.

                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)                           (CHIEF JUSTICE)

          Digitally
          signed by
          SALUNKE J
SALUNKE   V
JV        Date:
          2022.03.09
          18:40:53
          +0530




                                                             4
                       J.V.Salunke, PS