Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It has been submitted by Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has issued a Certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for brevity 'the Act') after constituting an Expert Committee which had seen the movie, critically examined it and suggested few excisions which have been carried out. That apart, it is urged by them that the CBFC had directed the producer to file two disclaimers which he had filed.

8. The relevant part of the Certificate issued by the CBFC reads as follows :

WP(C) 36/2018 “After examination of the film by the members of the Examining Committee mentioned below and on the recommendation of the said Examining Committee, the Board hereby certifies that the film is fit for public exhibition with an endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of 12 years may be allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child, and also subject to excision and modification listed in part II on the reverse :
... ... ...
27. It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the State and, therefore, the State shall maintain it effectively and potentially. Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the present case. As held in K.M. Shankarappa it is the responsibility of the State Government to maintain law and order.” It is urged by them, once a Certificate has been issued by the CBFC, the States cannot issue notifications or orders prohibiting exhibition of film in theatres. On the contrary, as has been stated in paragraph 27 of the judgment in Prakash Jha (supra), it is obligatory on the part of the State to maintain the law and order situation effectively because it is the responsibility of the State to maintain law and order as has been laid down in the case of Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001) 1 SCC 582.

13. Learned senior counsel would further argue that Section 5A of the Act deals with 'Certification of films' and CBFC exercises the statutory power. Sub-section (3) covers many an areas. Sub-section (3) of the said Section reads thus :

“5A. Certification of films. -
(1) ... ...
(2) ... ...
(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a certificate granted by the Board under this section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years.” WP(C) 36/2018 It is contended by Mr. Salve and Mr. Rohatgi that the Act is a parliamentary legislation and the CBFC has been constituted under the said Act and once the CBFC exercises the power and suggests certain excisions and the producers without appealing against the said directions, accept the same and certificate is issued, the States, taking recourse to law and order, cannot prohibit the film from being exhibited. It is also contended by them, the term 'being publicly exhibited' as has been interpreted in the case of Prakash Jha (supra) has to be appositely understood by the authorities. Learned senior counsel would contend that the freedom of speech and expression and the creative potentiality through any medium including the medium of celluloid cannot be curtailed in this manner.