Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Act of 1952 makes provision for certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions. The Central Government has constituted the Central Board of Film Certification under section 3 of the Act of 1952. The provisions of sections 4, 5, 5A and 5B pertain to examination 4 wp6029.11Final of films and sanction for public exhibition. It is submitted that as per section 5B of the Act of 1952, a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the competent authority, it is against public order, decency or morality. Hence, the film "Aarakshan" which is anti-

19. It will be appropriate to consider the law on the subject before we answer the questions involved in the present case. The law declared by the Apex Court on the subject by three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jagjivan Ram's case (supra) is relevant to resolve the issues involved in 19 wp6029.11Final the present Writ Petition.

20. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the judgement in Jagjivan Ram's case clearly demonstrate that the Act of 1952 which permits censorship of movies is a comprehensive enactment and there is a well drawn procedure stipulated therein which is required to be followed before certificate of public exhibition is granted to the film. The scheme of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1983 requires the authorities to follow a specific detailed and comprehensive procedure and is also duty bound to ensure that the maker of the film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society, including responsible to social change. It is also evident that the censorship is permitted mainly on the social interest such as security of the state, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, keeping in view the mandate of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is, therefore, clear that the Cinematograph Act of 1952 as well as the Rules of 1983 is not only a comprehensive Code in itself and requires the Board to examine the film by following a particular procedure stipulated in the said Act and the Rules, but the Board also is required to keep in mind the purport of Article 19(2) of the Constitution 20 wp6029.11Final and only after being satisfied and can ensure, that the anti-social activities are not glorified or unjustified in the film, visuals or words not likely to incite the commission of any offence are depicted in the film, avoidable scenes of violence, cruelty and horror are not shown in the film and sovereignty or integrity of India is not called in question, security of the State is not jeopardised or endangered, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality is not affected and it does not incite people to commit an offence, appropriate certificate for public exhibition is granted to the film.

22. A plain reading of the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 50 and 51 would show that the expression in the film with criticism of reservation policy or praising the colonial rule or the existing method of reservation on the basis of caste is bad and reservation on the basis of economic backwardness is better or deprecation of exploitation of people on caste considerations would not brand the film as objectionable or would result in affecting public order, decency or morality or incite people to commit offence if that is the theme and soul of the film. Similarly, merely on the basis of allegations and apprehensions that some organization would agitate, the State Government can abdicate its fundamental duty to establish rule of law and protect the freedom of expression since the State cannot plead its inability to establish rule of law. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that neither the learned counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners have seen the film and the apprehension is expressed on the basis of trailers and promos of the film without even mentioning any instance or dialogue in them which is likely to create disharmony in the society or likely to affect public order or incite people to commit offence. It is also not the 26 wp6029.11Final grievance of the petitioners that the Central Board of Film Certification did not follow a particular statutory procedure provided in the Act of 1952 or the Rules of 1983 before granting U/A certificate to the film. On the other hand, in the instant case, apart from four members of the Examining Committee who belonged to either SC or ST and OBC category, very distinguished experts in their respective fields were also invited at the time of purview of the film and one person of the Board was also nominated to be present at the time of purview of the film. It is the case of the respondents that the experts have opined that the film does not violate the provisions of the SC/ST Act as well as there is no likelihood of sentiments of any particular community or class will be hurt. It appears that the Board thereafter with due deliberations and keeping in view the object of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1983 was satisfied that the film and the promos thereof is/are fit for public exhibition and issued U/A certificate to the film. Merely because an apprehension is expressed by the petitioners based only on trailers and promos of the film, even without citing any incident or dialogue either from the film or trailer/promos of the film which would show that the release of the film would endanger public order or incite people to commit offence, it is, therefore, evident that the directions sought by the petitioners for screening of the film for them is only based on anticipation 27 wp6029.11Final of violence and presumptions that some agitations and protests are likely to take place on release of the film, this is, in our view, too far-fetched and illusory. In the absence of any specific material or evidence to come to such conclusion as well as without there being any grievance about the procedure adopted by the authorities before issuing U/A certificate to the film, the grievance of the petitioners is wholly misconceived. We want to express that in the absence of any grievance regarding the procedure adopted by the Board, it is not possible to presume that the Board did not take into consideration the object of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1983 and certified the film by ignoring the guidelines framed by the Central Government for Censor Board. On the other hand, in the absence of challenge to the procedure, it can safely be inferred that the Board considered the objectives of the Act of 1952 and after following the due procedure stipulated as per the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1983, with due care and deliberations, keeping in view the spirit of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India, issued the certificate in favour of the film "Aarakshan" for public exhibition, including its promos.

26. We would like to express that so far as the fundamental right regarding freedom of speech and expression given and guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is no doubt subject to the power of imposing reasonable restrictions by the State on the exercise of right conferred by clause (1), in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to people to commit an offence. However, it is for the aggrieved person to establish that the individual citizen or class of citizens while exercising their fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression has/have affected, or it is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court or defamation and would likely to incite the people to commit an offence. On the back drop of this legal position, it is for the petitioners in the present case to demonstrate how the film, trailers or promos of the film "Aarakshan" are objectionable and if the film is permitted to be released, would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security 32 wp6029.11Final of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or would incite the people to commit an offence. The petitioners have not placed before this Court any material whatsoever or evidence of any kind to hold that the film is wholly or any part thereof is likely to create problem of law and order or public order. Similarly, the petitioners have not even made a reference in the petition about any dialogue or any incident in the film or promos likely to cause problem to public order, except expressed apprehension that there will be protest, processions and violence if the film is permitted to be released. Firstly, this apprehension is based on no evidence and, secondly, as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Jagjivan Ram's case, even if these apprehensions relating to protests, processions and violence are true, that cannot be the ground to suppress fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, in our view, the petitioners have not made out any case for issuance of direction to the respondents to arrange a special screening of the film for them and their Advocates before its release.