Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

So, as mentioned earlier, it is directed that let the scene in which the Jamedar gives advise or giving an impression that he is being consulted, be deleted and cut-off from the reel. After having done that, the film can be released and be exhibited.
The Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Let this order be communicated to the parties immediately.
The petitioner shall before releasing the film file a memo intimating the Court that, that scene has been deleted. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the Counsel for the parties including learned Central Government Standing Counsel and the Government Counsels today.

9. The petitioners' Counsel on the merits of the case submitted that in the present case, there are yet certain scenes which are objectionable and which may affect the Courts and Judiciary adversely as well as its majesty or dignity. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that ihe picture or film in question may have an adverse effect on the prestige of the Judiciary and judicial system, if it is brought to the notice of the public. It has exhibited certain things which are far distant from realities of functioning of Court. The petitioner as well as Shri Mahantesh submitted that the persons presiding over the Courts, namely, the Judges, while, trying the case or, while, hearing the arguments or, while, dictating the judgments are shown to behave as if the Judge was acting under the threat or on the advise of their Jamedar/Dafedar that Jamedar was threatening to communicate some deficiency or weakness of the Judge to wives, so that they may suffer badly. On that basis, it appears to have been projected as that the Orderly Jamedar is always well competent to influence the decision of the Court, and so, it is definite that in the public eye, the prestige of the Court may go down and the litigants and public may think of developing contacts with Jamedars and try to play mischief with the Presiding Officets of the COURT. Such a scene which has been depicted of the Judge that at every time when he is recording evidence, he is acting under some third force, or the like from Jamedar that the Judge should give ears to him, otherwise, his weakness will he communicated to his wife or the scenes that the Judge is taking advises from Jamedar and Jamedar keeps standing on the dias of the Judge such a sequence make the film unexhibitable as appear to be resulting in damaging prestige of the Courts of law and the democratic structure of the country. Therefore such a scene (sic) he deleted and the respondents he restrained from exhibiting such a film. The second submission of the learned petitioners is that picture is depicting in the scene that in the Court Hall itsclt goddess of justice is being chased by the witch of injustice or goddess of injustice and she cries in all helplessness and goddess or witch of injustice prevails over justice in the Court on account of nothing but false, concocted evidence and makes a mockery of the system of justice. If this scene is allowed that goddess of justice is being chased by evil forces in Courts, then, peoples' faith in administration of justice by Courts will be damaged. So, this scene requires to he curtailed and unless it is so done, it may adversely affect the Court. Either film of this type be not allowed to be exhibited or let the respondents cut out and delete such objectionable portions. That by depicting the story to the effect apart from the roles of the two ladies in whose cases on the false evidence produced by their monied fathers -- the two Advocates, i.e., both the persons are able to get conflicting judgments in one case the poor law student is held to be impotent, while, in another case on the same evidence, Court hold him guilty of rape, and finally scene of the He Buffallo is depicted. The picture depicts that by false evidence even it can also be established that the Bull or He Buffallo gave birth to a calf or calves and He Buffallo's calf was stolen by the accused of that case depicting thereby, that by use of the false, forged or purchased untrue evidence, even greater impossibilities can also be got established and such verdicts can be taken.

Such a scene the petitioners submitted has got a tendency of adversely affecting the mind of ordinary man so for as relates to justice and course of adminsitration of justice given by the Courts, so this also requires to be deleted. The two petitioners as well as Shri Mahantesh Hosamath, Advocate, who was assisting the petitioners in the presentation of the case has submitted that there are two other scenes which adversely affect the prestige of the Courts and honour of the National Flag and the Nation. That in the film, it has been depicted that the Lawyer throws away his robe and coat in the Court completely disturbed and thereafter gets intoxicated of drinks, comes and falls down in front of the Tri-colour National Flag boisting on the pillar within the campus of the building of this Court, this is rather derogatory of the National Flag and the judicial system. It gives an impression as if the Lawyer falls down thinking as if the prestige of the National Flag is unsafe in the hands of the Lawyers and the Judges, because the Lawyer himself becomes confused and goes to the extent of taking alcohol or drinks and forgets his duty in the prevalent circumstances which shows he falls down before the National Flag, as if the prestige of National Flag is not safe. It was urged by petitioners that use of National Flag in cinema and public, except on National days is prohibited under law and use thereof as such wrong and scene above referred needs be deleted and out-off. Sri Mahantesh submitted that there is a lyric 'Narkade Hesare Ann', in English, it means what is the name of Hele and thereafter, another person strikes with the tool and says 'order', 'order' as if indicating that Hell is nothing but the order of the Court and so, it is derogatory and these scenes should also be deleted and cut-off.

11. The leamed counsel submitted that the scene objected to on behalf of the petitioners that Jamedar is shown every time to be standing by the side of the Judge, on the dias and no doubt, sometimes, he is shown to be talking to the Judge and is so depicted and it gives an impression as if Jamedar is giving some advise or some threat to the Judge. That is in a very low tune as if giving an impression that he is trying to blackmail the Judge. The learned counsel submitted that there is nothing as blackmail, but, the intent might be to show that there may be forces which may affect or which may make attempt to affect the mind of the Judge in such way and such attempts need be curbed and no encouragement be given to such effects, or to things having the tendency of adversely affecting and influencing the Judge or Judge's mind or working. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 further submitted that his clients, i.e., respondents 3 to 4 are ready to the cut-off and for deletion of any reel or scene if that requires not to be exhibited and needs to be deleted and also the scene showing the orderly interfering with the Judge if is required to be cut-off on the ground that scene might create some wrong or bad impression on the common people's mind let it no doubt deleted along with any other portion which this Court find necessary to be deleted.