Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Shri Babuji Rawji Shah – Appellant
Versus
S. Hussain Zaidi & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 15711 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2022
DEFAMATION - FILM CERTIFICATION - CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 - [Gangubai Kathiawadi] - [Defamation and Film Certification] - [Cinematograph Act, 1952, Section 5-B, Section 6, Rule 32] - The court discussed the principles for certifying films under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the role of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in ensuring that films do not breach decency, morality, or involve defamation. The court emphasized that while certification is not mandatory, it is essential for the CBFC to be responsive to societal values and standards, ensuring that sensibilities are not offended by obscenity, vulgarity, defamation, or denigration of any group of persons. The court also highlighted that a film illustrating the consequences of a social evil is permissible, and the certification by CBFC prima facie shows compliance with the guidelines. The court emphasized that a film cannot be allowed to be exhibited solely because a certificate has been issued if it breaches the norms of decency or contravenes the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son of the protagonist of the film 'Gangubai Kathiawadi', sought injunctions against the release of the film and the promotion of the book 'Mafia Queens of Mumbai', on which the film is based. The petitioner alleged defamation and sought to establish his status as the adopted son of Gangubai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish his status as the adopted son of Gangubai, and the film had already been certified by the CBFC. The court emphasized that the film prima facie complied with the certification guidelines and dismissed the petitioner's plea for interim relief, stating that the issues could be agitated in the pending appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of defamation, his status as the adopted son of Gangubai, and the certification of the film 'Gangubai Kathiawadi' by the CBFC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's failure to establish his status as the adopted son of Gangubai, the certification of the film by the CBFC, and the prima facie compliance of the film with the certification guidelines. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the principles for certifying films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the refusal of interim relief to the petitioner, stating that the issues could be addressed in the pending appeal.
ORDER
1. This special leave petition is against the judgment and order dated 30th July 2021, passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, rejecting an application being Interim Application (ST) No. 9764 of 2021 filed by the petitioner in First Appeal No. 9761/2021, seeking inter-alia an interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi", based on the book "Mafia Queens of Mumbai".
2. The petitioner who claims to be an adopted son of the protagonist of the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi", filed a suit in the City Civil Court of Mumbai seeking, inter alia, permanent injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from printing, publishing, advertising, selling, alienating, assigning and/or creating any third party rights or holding any press meets to promote the novel "Mafia Queens of Mumbai" and/or otherwise writing any other stories on the life of the petitioner's mother.
3. The petitioner also sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from producing, selling, assigning any rights to any entity, company, firm, cinema halls, multiplexes, social media or any other platforms or giving any press statement in public or on electronic media of the trailer/promo and/or film of the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi". Interim relief was sought inter alia restraining the concerned respondents from releasing the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi".
4. Some of the respondents filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint being Notice of Motion Nos. 186-187 of 2021, which were allowed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai and the plaint was rejected.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 9761/2021 in the Bombay High Court and also filed Interim Application being ST No. 9764 of 2021 seeking interim relief, which has been rejected by the order impugned. The appeal is pending before the Bombay High Court.
6. From the plaint, a copy whereof is included in the Paper Book, and in particular Paragraph 24 thereof, it appears that one of the respondents had, in response to a communication from the petitioner, questioned the status of the petitioner as the adopted son of Gangubai and called upon him to establish the same with proof. However, the plaint does not disclose any particulars of the petitioner's alleged adoption, not to speak of any documents on materials except the photocopy of a Ration Card. As noted by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai and the High Court, there are no materials at all to establish that the petitioner is the adopted son of Gangubai. A photocopy of a Ration Card unsupported by any other material does not even prima-facie establish the case of the petitioner of being the adopted son of Gangubai, who had died way back in the year 1980.
7. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the petitioner has stated that he is the son of Gangubai. In paragraph 11 he has stated that his mother had, since his adoption, given him all the love and affection of a mother, even though Gangubai was not his biological mother, she never made the petitioner feel that she was not his biological mother. According to the petitioner, the movie as also the book are defamatory in nature.
8. It is not in dispute that the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" has already been given the requisite certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
9. Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 lays down the principles for certifying films. The section provides that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition, if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against, inter alia, decency, or morality, or involves defamation. Section 6 of the said Act enables the Central Government to call for the records of any proceedings in relation to any film which is pending certification or has been certified. Rule 32 of the Cinemat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the principles for certifying films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the role of the CBFC in ensuring that f....
Point of Law : Once film is granted certificate by competent statutory authority, i.e. Board, producer or distributor of the film has every right to exhibit film in a hall unless, of course, said cer....
The importance of exhausting statutory remedies and the powers of the Central Government under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to suspend the exhibition of any film.
The court confirmed that copyright protection extends to expression forms, not ideas, and prima facie establishment of similarity warrants injunction relief.
Delay in approaching the court, awareness of the film release, and financial repercussions were crucial in the court's decision to reject the injunction.
Interim injunctions must consider the prima facie case and balance of convenience, especially where prior rights and public airing exist.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
