High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN, J.
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra & Another
Versus
Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Another
W.P.(CRL) 1188 OF 2009 & CRL.M.A. 9918 OF 2009
Decided On : 02-01-2013
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) r/w Section 7(d) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Film did not preach or approve practice of untouchability - Petitioners produced and directed the Hindi motion picture titled "Delhi-6" - Film viewed and cleared by "CBFC" - Allegation that character enacting the role of a lady sweeper had been insulted and the entire Balmiki Samaj had been insulted - FIR based on a few expressions and scenes in the film taken in isolation - Main protagonist strongly opposed any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, race, religion etc. - Held: Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression - Freedom of expression is of inestimable value in a democratic society based on the rule of law - Power vested in the Court to quash FIRs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be used sparingly and for rare and compelling circumstances - Court has the power to quash an FIR under investigation at the initial stage itself - Court has to take into consideration what effect the movie is likely to produce on the minds of its viewers for whom the movie was intended - Respondent no.2-complainant committed a fundamental error in not appreciating that a film that carries a message that a social evil is evil, cannot be banned on the ground that it depicts the social evil - Film did not preach or approve the practice of untouchability in any manner - FIR quashed - Petition allowed.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) read with Section 7(d) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Film an expression of an idea protected by Constitution - Alleged in the complaint that in the film "Delhi6", the character enacting the role of a lady sweeper had been insulted and thereby the entire Balmiki Samaj had been insulted - Impugned FIR based on a few expressions and scenes in the film taken in isolation - Censor Board had viewed the film in question in its true perspective and had, in compliance with the requirements of the guidelines, granted the Certificate to the film - Held: Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression - Film is an expression of an idea which is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, bound to respect the right to freedom of expression - Court has the power to quash an FIR under investigation at the initial stage itself - Film sought to portray certain evils prevalent in our society, but it did not cater to the prurient interest in any person - Film did not preach or approve the practice of untouchability in any manner - FIR quashed - Petition allowed.
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.40/2009 dated 07th March, 2009 registered with Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 7(d) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioners produced and directed the Hindi motion picture titled “Delhi-6” (hereinafter referred to as “the film”). The film was viewed and cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (in short “CBFC”), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting with a ‘U/A’Certificate bearing CBFC No. C-II/2/17/09 dated 09th February, 2009.
3. Upon commercial release of the film on 20th February, 2009 the aforesaid FIR was registered on 07th March, 2009 by respondent No.2- complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that for the last five/six days, the aforesaid film had been shown in Delhi cinema halls in which the character enacting the role of a lady sweeper had been insulted and thereby the entire Balmiki Samaj had been insulted. The FIR lodged by respondent No.2-complainant is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Copy of report No.17A, dated 01.03.09 P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi, Shri Jai Kishan S/o Shri Shankar Lal R/o Rajpal, Near Sultanpuri Age 50 years, MLA Sultanpur Mazra, time of information 6.25 O Clock evening, reported that at this time Shri Jai Kishan MLA Sultanpur Mazra along with Dr. O.P. Shukla S/o Lt. Shri Banwari Lal R/o AG-4, Peswa Road Apartment, Gole Market, New Delhi, Pandit Durga Prasad S/o Chaudhary Kude Pahalwan R/o 29, Bhairon Road, Minto Road, New Delhi and Suka Pradhan R/o 1916/11, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Shri Kishan Lal Ghilode, S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram R/o 4521, UEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi, Ram Lal, Laxman Balmiki, S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal R/o Gali no. 51 Sector 8, Rohini, New Delhi, Pradeep Bangali, S/o Kartar Singh, R/o 1887, Gurdwara Road, Chuna Mandi Paharganj, New Delhi, Sunil Balmiki S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal, R/o Balmiki Basti Mandir Marg, New Delhi got a complaint filed that since last 5-6 days, a film by the name of Delhi 6 is being shown in the Delhi Cinema Halls in which the character enacting role of lady sweeper is being insulted and Balmiki Samaj is insulted thereby. Not only this, the lady sweeper who is called again and again “Bhangan”is beaten by the character enacting the role of Police and she is referred to as “Saali”and she is hit on the front part with stick, whereas calling Bhangi is an legal offence, even two small children are shown saying that “Jalebi (who is enacting the role of Bhangan) make us Mard. We have information that you make Mard. At one place police people tell Jalebi that “our thanedar is calling you”. When she declines then one Head Constable is seen hitting her with stick. In the meantime, character playing the role of Thanedar comes and says “Saali Bhangan”I will show you how you will not come and hits her on the leg with the sticks. On this the character Jalebi says that Saale when you open string in the night then you do not see that I am a Bhangan. Harami Lehange Ke Pissu, you do not feel shame in hitting a women and she is beaten away. In one scene she is stopped from entering the temple and she said by a character that “we do not want to go to hell”and she is stopped. In one scene it is shown that when Abhishek Bachhan touches that woman, then his grandmother says that “you have become un-pious and today I will get you bathed. She washes Abhishek Bachhan’s hand with gobar and puts on Sandal (Chandan) and perform his Sudhikaran. Please take legal action against Director of the movie and those responsible for passing the film and against Vijay Ram, Pawan Malhotra, Devander, Prem Chopra, Wahida Rahman, Director Rakesh Om Prakash Mehra, UTI Company and other and against Censor Board Chairman Sharmila Tagore as their acts are not onl
Bobby Art International & ors. V Om Pal Singh Hoon & ors. 1996 (4) SCC 1
James Sebastian & anr. v State of Assam & anr. 2008 CrLJ 3634
Rajiv Kumar Sadh & ors. v Govt. of NCT Delhi & anr. 2001 (89) DLT 419
S. Rangarajan V P. Jagjivan Ram & ors. 1989 (2) SCC 574
S. Khushboo v Kanniammal & anr. 2010 (5) SCC 600
K.A. Abbas V The Union of India & anr. 1970 (2) SCC 780
Adalat Prasad v Rooplal Jindal & ors. 2004 (7) SCC 338
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.