Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
Akhil Bhartiya Dhamma Sena & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 695 of 2014
Decided On: 21st February, 2014
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the Cinematograph Act, the Government of India has issued the notification directing that while sanctioning the films for public exhibition, the Board of Film Certification shall be guided by the principles, as incorporated in the notification.
It is clear that an obligation on the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification to ensure that the visuals or words in the movie does not lead to defamation of an individual or of body of individuals. In the present case it is as undisputed fact that the movie is based on the incidents which occurred at Khairlanji on 29th September, 2006 and in which the petitioner No. 2 and his family had been victim and four members of the family of the petitioner No. 2 have lost their lives. It is admitted by the respondent No. 3 that she is proclaiming that the movie is based on the true incidents which occurred at Khairlanji. Even the tile of the movie “Khairlanji Chya Mathyawar“ connects the movie with the incidents of village Khairlanji. The respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification has given the certificate to the movie for its exhibition on 31st December, 2013.
Thus, the public viewing the film is given an idea that the film is inspired by the true events. In view of these facts, it is clear that the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification, has consciously given the certificate to the film on 31st December, 2013 knowing that the movie is inspired by the true events. It is an admitted fact that before Court the movie containing, scenes showing the petitioner No. 2 consuming alcohol is not screened.
It is undisputed that the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification has not given any notice to the petitioner No. 2 and has not given him any opportunity to submit his objections, if any, regarding the correctness of the story and the scenes shown in the movie. The veracity and the truthness of the scenes depicted in the movie can be examined by the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification only by giving an opportunity to the concerned person in respect of whom the scenes proclaimed to be based on true events, are shown. The particulars of exigencies and modifications shown in part-II along with certificate of exhibition given by the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification shows that the disclaimer clause has been substituted. This fact further shows that the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification had been aware that some scenes in the movie are dramatized for cinematic effect. In Court‘s view, before giving the certificate of exhibition and before certifying that the film is inspired by the true events but they have been dramatized for cinematic effect, it was under an obligation to verify the veracity and truth in the matter and for doing this the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification was under an obligation to give notice to the petitioner No. 2 and after showing him the movie to give an opportunity to submit objections, if any, he had in the matter.
It is undisputed that some persons have been prosecuted and convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara and with modification by this Court and the appeal is pending before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. The guideline No. 2(xviii) lays down that the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification has to ensure that visuals or words involving contempt of Court are not presented. Court is not aware about the scenes shown in the movie regarding the character of the persons who are prosecuted and convicted. Court is not aware as to what is shown in the movie regarding the prosecution and the conviction of these persons. However, one thing is clear from the record that the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification has not applied its mind and has not considered the matter in the right perspective and has overlooked the guideline No. 2 (xviii) and because of it the decision of the respondent No. 2 - Board of Film Certification to issue the certificate of exhibition to the movie is vitiated.
Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 5-B (2) - Objection as to Exhibition of Film. - Since cause of action to raise objection would arise only after petitioner was shown movie hence objection as to exhibition of film filed by petitioner immediately after seeing movie not barred by delay and latches. - As far as the question of unexplained delay and latches raised on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, the facts on record show that there is no delay or latches on the part of the petitioner No. 2 in filing the writ petition. It is undisputed that the movie is shown to the petitioner No. 2 on 29th January, 2014. The fact that the respondent No. 3 has given wide publicity to the movie since November, 2013 and has booked the theaters and has spent huge amount for its advertisement, does not mean that the petitioner No. 2 was having knowledge about the scenes in the movie which according to the petitioner No. 2 are not true and are objectionable. The cause of action for the petitioner to make any grievance has arisen only after he is shown the movie on 29th January, 2014.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of writ jurisdiction. - Fact, whether petitioner is shown drunkard in a Movie or not or whether said scenes were necessary for movie or not, cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.
Z.A. HAQ, J.
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 sui
SupremeToday
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
