1995 Supreme(AP) 199

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.L.N.SHARMA
Sree Raghavendra Films, rep.by its Managing Partner, D.V.Chalapathi - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., rep.by the Secretary, Home (Cinemas) department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-07-95

The court held that the respondents failed to form their own opinion before issuing the impugned orders, as required under Sections 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and 22(2)(e) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, and that the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant a U certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film was binding on the respondents.

Headnote:

BOMBAY FILM EXHIBITION - SUSPENSION - CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 - ANDHRA PRADESH CINEMAS (REGULATION) ACT, 1955 - HYDERABAD CITY POLICE ACT, 1348 F. - SECTIONS 8, 22(2)(E) - FILM CERTIFICATION - RESTRICTIONS - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 19(1)(A) - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE MAN STANDARD - PUBLIC ORDER - COMMUNAL HARMONY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - WRIT PETITION - SUSPENSION OF IMPUGNED ORDERS - CONDITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a film distributor, challenged the suspension of the exhibition of the Telugu version of the film "Bombay" in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and Ranga Reddy district for two months by the second and third respondents, respectively, under Sections 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and 22(2)(e) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, on the grounds that the exhibition of the film was likely to cause a breach of peace and create religious animosity and hatred between different communities.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned orders were illegal and void as the respondents failed to form their own opinion that the exhibition of the film was likely to cause a breach of peace and create religious animosity and hatred between different communities, which was a pre-requisite for exercising powers under Section 8 of the Act. The court also held that the Central Board of Film Certification, which is specifically constituted with people having experience to judge the impact of the film on the public, had issued a U certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film, and the respondents could not sit in judgment over the decision of the Censor Board.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents formed their own opinion before issuing the impugned orders, as required under Sections 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and 22(2)(e) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? 2. Whether the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant a U certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film was binding on the respondents? 3. Whether the impugned orders were justified on the grounds of public order and communal harmony?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned orders were illegal and void as the respondents failed to form their own opinion that the exhibition of the film was likely to cause a breach of peace and create religious animosity and hatred between different communities, which was a pre-requisite for exercising powers under Section 8 of the Act. The court relied on the fact that the impugned orders merely stated that it was brought to the notice of the respondents that the exhibition of the film was likely to cause a breach of peace and create religious animosity or hatred between the communities, and did not indicate that the respondents had formed their own opinion. 2. The court held that the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant a U certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film was binding on the respondents. The court relied on the fact that the Board is specifically constituted with people having experience to judge the impact of the film on the public, and that the respondents could not sit in judgment over the decision of the Censor Board. 3. The court held that the impugned orders were not justified on the grounds of public order and communal harmony. The court noted that the film had been released in other parts of the country without any untoward incidents, and that the two incidents mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents were insignificant. The court also held that the respondents' reliance on representations made by certain organizations and individuals against the exhibition of the film was not sufficient to justify the impugned orders.

Final Decision: The court suspended the impugned orders pending the disposal of the writ petition, subject to the condition that the petitioner would not exhibit the film in the twin cities and Ranga Reddy District without showing three specific scenes that the court found to be potentially offensive.