PREFATORY FACTS

1. The issues which this writ petition throws up, reminds me of what Voltaire said ages ago “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.

1.1 The writ petition has been filed to assert the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression of a documentarian and his ilk, conferred under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioner is the producer of the film, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (in short the FCAT), in appeal, as also by the order-in-original passed by the Central Board of Film Certification (in short the CBFC).

1.2 The FCAT order, is dated 11.09.2014, while the order of the CBFC is dated 30.12.2013.

1.3 The petitioner seeks to assert his right to show the documentary titled: “The Textures of Loss”, without the stipulated deletions/excisions, as according to him, nothing in the film falls within the ambit of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution. There is also a challenge to the guidelines dated 06.12.1991 (1991 Guidelines), framed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, for guidance of CBFC, while sanctioning films for public exhibition.

1.4 The CBFC, by order dated 30.12.2013, had directed insertion of a disclaimer and four deletion/excisions from the subject film. The FCAT, partially allowed the appeal of the petitioner, in as much as, it did away with two out of the four deletions, directed by the CBFC.

2. Before I deal with the submissions made by the counsels before me, it may be relevant to note certain brief facts, which have been set out in the writ petition.

2.1 It is averred that the petitioner, in 2005, began his research on the subject, which essentially attempts to capture, at least, from the point of view of the petitioner, the travails of persons who have been affected by violence, perpetrated from time to time in the Valley of Kashmir.

2.2 The shooting of the film, which, apparently, commenced in October, 2005, got concluded in April, 2012. The film though, got completely made, a year later, i.e., in 2013.

2.3 The final product is an approximately 61 minute documentary film, which the petitioner avers is based on case studies of persons, who were affected by long-term violence in Kashmir.

2.4 On the completion of the film, an application was made to the CBFC for certification of the film. This application was filed on 26.12.2013, with the regional office of the CBFC.

2.5 The petitioner avers that, on 27.12.2013, he received a telephonic call from a person, who claimed to be a clerk at the CBFC office. The conversation with the caller went something like this: “Sahib” had seen the film, and that, he had suggested four deletions in the film. The petitioner was told to take note of the same and have them, accordingly, deleted.

2.6 It is stated that since, the petitioner, could neither follow the purport of the conversation, nor fathom as to whether the person who he was speaking to, had the relevant authority, he asked the person concerned, to put down everything that had been said to him, in writing, and thereafter, dispatch the same, by post or email to him.

2.7 The petitioner avers that, to his surprise, three days later he received the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, whereby deletions had been directed, in addition to a directive to insert a disclaimer. By this order, a certification for public viewing was issued in favour of the petitioner’s film, subject to the excisions and insertion of disclaimers, suggested in the said order.

2.8 According to the petitioner, what was even more surprising is the fact that the order of the CBFC, made a false assertion that he had been given an opportunity to make oral submissions which, he had not availed of.

2.9 The petitioner, being aggrieved, both by the content and the conclusion reached in the order dated 30.12.2013, lodged a protest by way of an email dated 02.01.2014, with the regional office of t