The Board of Film Certification is obligated to ensure that visuals or words involving defamation of an individual are not presented in a movie, as per the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.M. Shamkuwar with Mr. M.A. Khobragade, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mrs. B.H. Dangre, officiating Government Pleader for respondent no.4.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. This writ petition is filed praying for restraint orders against the respondent no.3 – producer of a movie from exhibiting a movie titled as “Khairlanji Chya Mathyawar”. The challenge is raised by a social organization, which claims to be working at national level to spread the Bouddhism in the Indian Territory and claims to be fighting for social justice. The petitioner no.2 is a person who claims to be directly affected by the scenes shown in the movie as it is claimed that the movie is based on true story/events which happened in the life of the petitioner no.2 and according to the petitioner no.2 some scenes shown in the movie are not correct and will tarnish his and his daughter's social image.

4. The unfortunate and shocking incident which occurred at Khairlanji town in Bhandara district was the subject matter of reporting in the print media and the electronic media for several weeks. The petitioner no.2 Bhaiyyalal s/o Sudam Bhotmange was also the subject of news during that period. Because of the continuous coverage of the events/incidents which took place in Khairlanji, the subject matter was known through out the nation.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.2 was invited by the respondent no.3 for the premier show of the movie titled as “Khairlanji Chya Mathyawar” on 29th January, 2014. Pursuant to the invitation, the petitioner no.2 and Shri Ravindra @ Ravi s/o Paikuji Shende, the president of the petitioner no. 1 organization, attended the premier show and after seeing the movie they found that some scenes of the movie were obnoxious and objectionable and the petitioner no.2 is shown as drunkard and timid person always bowing before the Sarpanch and Police Patil of the village Khairlanji. The petitioners have submitted that the movie shows that the daughter of petitioner no.2 was involved in love affair. According to the petitioners the above referred scenes of the movie tarnish the image of the petitioner no.2 and his daughter. The petitioners have asserted that the petitioner no.2 has never consumed liquor and the movie shows the petitioner no.2 as a drunkard, which may tarnish his image. The petitioners have stated that the fundamental rights of the petitioner no.2 enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India entitle him to seek appropriate orders from this Court to preserve his personal dignity and to maintain his social status. The petitioners have stated that in the shocking incident which occurred on 29th September, 2006, four members of the family of the petitioner no.2 lost their lives and for which the antisocial persons were prosecuted and convicted by the Sessions Court, Bhandara and their conviction is maintained with modification by this Court and the matter is now pending in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. The movie was to be released for exhibition on 7th February, 2014. The petitioners moved this Court by this writ petition on 6th February, 2014. Notices were issued to the respondents and ad-interim order was passed restraining the respondent no.3 from releasing the movie.

7. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court the respondent no.3 has put in appearance and has filed the submissions. The respondent no.1 and 2 though served have not put in their appearances. The respondent no.4 – State of Maharashtra is represented by Mrs. B.H. Dangre, officiating Assistant Government Pleader.

8. The respondent no.3 has submitted that the petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner no.1 organization as it has no locus to file the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner no.2 has an alternate remedy available to file the suit or suit for damage