Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner claims that the impugned order dated 21.08.2014 is without jurisdiction as CBFC does not have the power to review its own decision. CBFC had granted an "A" Certificate after viewing the feature film in question and the same could not be reviewed. It is also the petitioner's case that the said order dated 21.08.2014 was passed at the instance of the Central Government, which has no power to issue any such directions.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts to address the controversy are as under:

3.13 It is stated that immediately on receipt of the letter dated 21.08.2014 from the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Chairperson, CBFC issued the impugned communication dated 21.08.2014, communicating the decision to withdraw the certificate issued to the film in question.

3.14 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before FCAT, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.10.2014.

Submissions

4. Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on, essentially, two fronts. First, he submitted that the Chairperson of CBFC had no power to review and cancel the certificate that was issued by CBFC. He contended that the said certification was issued by CBFC after the Revising Committee had viewed the feature film on two occasions. He submitted that there was no provision in the Act which empowered the Chairperson to override the decision of the Revising Committee. Next, he submitted that the feature film did not violate any guidelines and withdrawal of certification was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Prakash Jha Productions and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.: (2011) 8 SCC 372 in support of his contention that once a feature film has been certified by CBFC for public exhibition, it cannot be subjected to further censorship by the Government.

Reasons and Discussion

6. At the outset, this Court finds it necessary to state that the letters dated 21.08.2014, as produced by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, do not inspire any confidence. It is difficult to understand how on a single date, that is, on 21.08.2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs had communicated its view that the feature film was likely to cause a serious law and order situation to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and on the same date, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had sent a communication directing the Chairperson, CBFC to re-examine the film. The Chairperson, CBFC had responded immediately and sent a letter dated 21.08.2014, conforming that she had re-examined the film. Curiously, she claimed to have re-examined the film on 22.08.2014 at 12:00 noon, which is one day after the date of the letter. The said letter was received by the Additional Secretary, Films on 21.08.2014 and he had, thereafter, issued another letter on the same date, that is, on 21.08.2014 directing the Chairperson, CBFC to take necessary action. She had acted instantaneously and issued the impugned communication withdrawing the certification.

10. In the present case, Central Government has not passed any order under Section 6(1) of the Act requiring the Board (CBFC) to act in conformity with such orders. The chain of communication called upon the Chairperson, CBFC to take appropriate action so that the guiding principles of the Act are not violated by certifying the film for release. As noticed above, the Revising Committee had examined the film to ascertain whether the film conforms to the concerned Guidelines. Thus, the letter dated 21.08.2014 sent to the Chairperson, CBFC for ensuring the same, was clearly not in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act. More importantly, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity prior to issuing any such order, as is stipulated under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. The said proviso expressly provides that the Central Government shall not pass any order prejudicially affecting any person applying for a certificate or to whom a certificate has been granted as the case may be, except by giving him an opportunity for representing his views in the matter. The reference to such order is clearly an order passed by the Central Government under the main provision of Section 6(1) of the Act.