1. Challenge to High Court order refusing to quash a film certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1683
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
Priya Singh Paul - Petitioner
Versus
Madhur Bhandarkar & Ors. - Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19194 of 2017
Decided On : 27-07-2017
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Sultan Singh, Mr. V. Hari Pillai, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Madhu Vishal Gadodia, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Yugandhara Pawar Jha
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Sultan Singh, Mr. V. Hari Pillai, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Madhu Vishal Gadodia, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Yugandhara Pawar Jha
Important Points
The right to artistic expression and freedom of expression within the parameters of the law.
Subject
Entertainment Law - Film Certification
Headnote
Film Certification - Artistic Expression - The court declined to quash the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (C.B.F.C) to the film 'Indu Sarkar' based on the artistic expression and the disclaimer provided by the film director.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the High Court declining to quash the certificate granted by the C.B.F.C to the film 'Indu Sarkar'. The High Court declined to interfere based on the individual nature of the petition and the artistic expression of the film.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim based on unclear status was not acceptable and untenable. It also concluded that the exhibition of the movie was an artistic expression within the parameters of the law and declined to interfere.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the petition, the status of the petitioner, the artistic expression of the film, and the right to freedom of expression of the film director.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the individual nature of the petition, the artistic expression and disclaimer provided by the film director, and the right to freedom of expression within the parameters of the law.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and there was no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a film blending fact and fiction affecting reputations of historical personalities warrants restraint versus the director's fundamental right to freedom of expression. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The film constitutes an artistic expression within legal parameters, supported by a disclaimer and the sanctity of the certification granted by the film certification board. (Para 3 , 6 )
4. Artistic expression within the parameters of law, supported by a certification from the competent authority and a disclaimer, cannot be curtailed. (Para 6 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Does the blending of fact and fiction in a film justify a prohibitory order against its exhibition?
No, if the film is an artistic expression within the parameters of law and includes a disclaimer, there is no warrant or justification to curtail its exhibition. (Para 6 )
7. What weight is given to a certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification?
The court recognizes the sanctity of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification as a material factor in declining to interfere with the exhibition of a film. (Para 3 )
8. Can a film be restrained if it depicts historical events and personalities?
Not when the work is an artistic expression within legal parameters, utilizes a disclaimer to clarify the lack of semblance to real characters, and has been duly certified. (Para 3 , 6 )
ORDER :
Heard Mr. K. Sultan Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The present special leave petition calls in question the legal propriety of the order dated 24th July, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1947 of 2017, whereby the High Court has declined to quash the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (C.B.F.C) to the film, namely, “Indu Sarkar”.
3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the High Court has observed that the writ petition was not in the nature and character of a public interest litigation, but in the individual capacity of the petitioner. It has observed certain aspects with regard to the status of the petitioner and finally opined that the petitioner's claim on the basis of unclear status is not acceptable and untenable. As far as the status of the petitioner is concerned, we do not intend to say anything in that regard as that might be ultimately a matter of civil litigation. As far as the film is concerned, the High Court has taken note of the disclaimer, the merger of facts and fiction and the sanctity of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification and non-challenge by anyone else and has, accordingly, declined to interfere.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.1, the director of the film, had given an interview to the television channel, namely, Republic T.V., and in the said interview, he had stated that 30% of the film is based on facts and 70% is fiction and there are certain parts in the movie which refer to emergency and this affects the personal life of the depicted protagonists of that point of time. Be it noted, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a C.D. that contains the trailer of the movie and, therefore, we had the occasion to see the same. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that such a projection by the respondent No.1 affects the reputation of the personalities during the emergency era and when there is amalgam of facts and fiction, this Court should interfere and restrain the exhibition of the movie.
5. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, would contend that the disclaimer put forth by the respondent No.1 is absolutely clear as crystal that it has no semblance with regard to living or dead characters of history and, if it is so, it is purely coincidental. It is contended by him that it is a dramatization of a situation portrayed in the movie and, in any case, a film director has the fundamental right to express himself as long as it remains within its boundaries. It is also put forth by him that the Central Board of Film Certification initially had suggested fourteen cuts and, thereafter, the Revision Committee reduced the cuts and the same have been carried out. Learned senior counsel would contend that the respondent No.1 has conducted a proper research and taken the facts from the published books and, therefore, his right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed by a prohibitory order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that so far as the perception of the High Court on status of the petitioner is concerned, there cannot be any dispute, as the issue has been left open. As far as the exhibition of the movie is concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that it is an artistic expression within the parameters of law and there is no warrant or justification to curtail the same.
7. In the result, the special leave petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
