IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the creative freedom of filmmakers in addressing social issues and the responsibility to depict the overall message of the film in determining its permissibility. It also highlights the influence of certification granted by CBFC and the legal provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The Petitioner, a person with disability, has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the actions of Respondent No.1 i.e., Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd., in producing a movie `Aankh Micholi' (`Movie'), in which, allegedly derogatory and discriminatory remarks are made against the Persons with Disabilities (`PwDs').

2. The Petitioner by way of this petition is, inter alia, at prayer (a) seeks a direction to Respondent No.2, Central Board of Film Certification (`CBFC'), to include an expert on the subject matter of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (`RPWD Act') within the Board of Film Certification under Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (`Act of 1952') and advisory panel constituted under Section 5 of said Act. The Petitioner also seeks relief(s) against Respondent No.1 including the relief of punitive damages to any charitable organization that support PwDs and a public apology.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent No.1 in its Movie has portrayed several characters suffering from physical disability as stooge and anomalous to common people. He states that the Movie includes scenes and characterization that are not only distasteful but also reinforce negative stereotypes. He states that the specific instances of the derogatory remarks against the PwDs in the movie have been set out at paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition. He states the Movie is violative of Section 3(3) of the RPWD Act.

3.1. He states that the Movie was released on 03.11.2023 and has since flopped at the box office. He states that after viewing the Movie's trailer, which was published on 26.09.2023, the Petitioner had issued a legal notice to Respondent No.1 which was replied to on 17.10.2023 denying the contentions citing creative freedom.

3.2. During the course of arguments, he states that the Petitioner would be satisfied if the Court considers the relief at prayer (a) sought against Respondent No.2 to include an expert within the CBFC and on the advisory panel constituted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1952 respectively.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 states that the reliefs sought in this petition are untenable. He states that the Respondent No.1 had duly replied on 17.10.2023 to the notice served by the Petitioner and clarified its stance on the Movie. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra and Anr. v. GNCTD and Anr., (2013) 134 DRJ 291 and more specifically paragraph 44 therein to contend that in films to address social evils, it is necessary to depict such social evils itself to bring out their consequences. He states that the overall message of the Movie and the core storyline is centered around overcoming disability.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Firstly, the legal notice dated 06.10.2023 was issued by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 after viewing the trailer of the Movie and on the basis of the contents of the trailer only. The Movie itself was released on 03.11.2023 after the grant of `U' certification by the CBFC. The trailer as well as movie were granted `U' certification by the CBFC.

7. The Respondent No.1 in its reply dated 17.10.2023 had expressly denied the allegations in the notice alleging that the intent of the Movie was to offend or humiliate differently abled persons. The Respondent No.1 in its reply explained the overall message of the film as intended to be conveyed by its creator. The relevant portion of the reply reads as under:

"4. Our Client is sensitive to the issues of differently abled individuals and deeply values their integrity and dignity, and the Film has been made with this sentiment. Our Client has no intention to humiliate or insult differently abled persons through their films.

5. The overall message of the Film, in fact, is one of overcoming the challenge of disability to find lov