1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 4 to 8 in portraying the sister of the petitioner in the movie ‘The Dirty Picture’ in a defamatory and obscene manner and consequential restraint on respondents 1 to 3 from issuing certification for exhibition of this film.

2. On 16.11.2011, when the writ petition was listed for admission, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel, appearing on caveat, for respondents 4 to 8 sought time to get instructions and the learned counsel for the petitioner also sought time to file additional documents. Hence, the writ petition was directed to be listed on 23.11.2011. On 23.11.2011, counter affidavits on behalf of the contesting respondents were filed and as the petitioner had sought to move additional applications, the writ petition together with such applications were directed to be listed on 28.11.2011. On 28.11.2011, detailed arguments were advanced by all the learned counsel appearing for the parties, hence, listed ‘for orders’ on 01.12.2011.

3. It is not in dispute that respondents 1 to 3 have granted the certificate for theatrical release of the said film on 18.11.2011 and the petitioner also has sought consequential amendment seeking to challenge the said certificate. The said miscellaneous application WPMP.No.38842 of 2011 was ordered during the hearing of the writ petition on 28.11.2011, as it was not opposed. All the learned counsel have made submissions based on the said amended relief wherein the said certificate itself is questioned as a primary relief in the writ petition.

4. Petitioner claims that his sister – Kum.Vadapatla Vijaya Lakshmi, popularly know as ‘Silk Smitha’, acted in about 400 films in various South Indian languages and has attained celebrity status as film actress. She, however, died on 23.09.1996 and petitioner claims that he is the only surviving legal heir. Respondents 4 and 5 together with respondents 7 and 8 allegedly produced the film ‘The Dirty Picture’, which was directed by respondent No.6 under banner of respondent No.8. It is alleged that through the print and electronic media various statements were issued on behalf of respondents 4 to 8 proclaiming that the said film is based upon the life of the said sister of the petitioner resulting in lot of curiosity and unwanted attention to the petitioner’s family members and relatives. It is also alleged that neither of the respondents directly or indirectly approached the petitioner nor have obtained any information as to the personal details of the petitioner’s sister, but have depicted a derogatory and distorted version of her personality and character, which seriously defames the deceased actress as well as the family of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the said film portrays the petitioner’s sister as a woman of very loose and immoral character and the film contains obscene scenes, which are opposed to public morality and decency and deprive and degrade the women in general. The petitioner, therefore, seeks protection by alleging that the right of privacy of the deceased is violated apart from the film being highly defamatory to the person, who is no longer alive to defend it. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed number of press clippings appearing in regional as well as in English print media, which are said to support the petitioner’s allegations, referred to above. The petitioner has also annexed a family member certificate to substantiate that he is the only legal heir of the deceased actress.

5. Counter affidavit is field by respondents 1 to 3 stating that an application for issuance of certificate for the said film was received by the Central Board of Film Certification on 11.11.2011 and the film was examined by a examining committee on 17.11.2011 and as per the recommendation of the said committee, a certificate under category ‘A’ was issued restricting the exhibition of the film for adult viewin