Kerala High Court
Saijo Kannanaikkal vs The Regional Officer on 1 April, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20305 of 2016 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
1. SAIJO KANNANAIKKAL,
FILM DIRECTOR, PAVARATTY,
THRISSUR- 680 507.
2. FEFKA DIRECTOR'S UNION,
THE FILM EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION OF KERALA,
FREEDOM ROAD, KOCHI -682 017,
REPRESENTED BY KAMAL, PRESIDENT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SEBASTIAN PAUL,
SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE,
SRI.RON BASTIAN,
SMT.SABEENA P.ISMAIL.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION,
CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, THIRUVALLAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 027.
2. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
BROADCASTING "A" WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI- 110 001.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST.S.G. OF INDIA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, CGC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 20305 of 2016 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01-04-2016
RECEIVED FORM THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY DECCAN
CHRONICLE IN ITS ISSUE DATED MAY 7, 2016.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
rs.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20305 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 28th June, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The first petitioner is the producer and director of the Malayalam feature film 'Kathakali'. The second petitioner is an association of film directors. The first petitioner has applied to the first respondent for certification of the film 'Kathakali'under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). In response to the application, the first petitioner was issued Ext.P1 communication by the first respondent stating that the Central Board of Film Certification ('the Board' for short) has come to the conclusion that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition only if the petitioner modifies the film in the manner indicated therein. The following are the modifications suggested in Ext.P1:
1. Delete the word "Kazhuveriyude Mone" in the second reel.
2. Delete the scene of undressing and beating character Dasan towards the end showing nudity.
3. Delete the visuals showing nudity of character Dasan in the last reel wherever it occurs.
The first petitioner is ready to delete the objectionable words from the audio of the film. The objection raised as to the nudity, according to the first petitioner, is male nudity which is not shown as part of any sexual activity or vulgarity. It is the case of the petitioners that the same is part of the story, and the climax of the story hinges upon the scene directed to be deleted/modified. It is alleged that Ext.P1 letter thus infringes the fundamental right guaranteed to the first petitioner under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the first respondent to certify the film in accordance with Section 5A of the Act.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. The stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit is that on receipt of the application submitted by the first petitioner for certification, an examination committee was constituted for examining the film and the examination committee formed the opinion that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition only if the modifications referred to in Ext.P1 are carried out. It is clarified, however, in the counter affidavit that the Board has no objection in granting 'A' certificate to the film, if the first petitioner makes a formal request in that regard.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners are not particular about the nature of certification and that their only requirement is that the film has to be certified for public exhibition.
5. As noted above, the Board has no objection in granting 'A' certificate to the film 'Kathakali'. The counter affidavit filed in the writ petition does not indicate that the petitioner has specifically requested for a certification for unrestricted public exhibition. As such, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to issue the appropriate certification for the film 'Kathakali'. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)