Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 21
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ali Mohammad Magrey, Dhiraj Singh Thakur, JJ.
Iftikhar Misger & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous No. 472 of 2020
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Shafqat Nazir, Advocate, Shabir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate, D.C. Raina, Advocate, B.A. Dar, Advocate, Tahir Shamsi, Advocate, Anil Bhan, Advocate
Headnote:
Cinematograph Act 1952 - Sections 5 - Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 - Section 8 - Heart wrenching incidents - Claim to be respectable citizens of India - Petitioners claim to be respectable citizens of India - Credentials as stated in petition are that petitioner is businessman and social activist petitioner is freelance journalist and political analyst and petitioner is practicing Advocate and social activist - It is averred in petition that this petition is filed by in public interest with no personal motive or grudge against respondents - Petition relates to production and screening of Hindi movie titled scheduled to be released today - Movie is stated to be relating painful event of migration of Kashmiri from Valley historical event is described by petitioners in petition which shall be quoted by us at appropriate place in this judgment – Held re is no reason or legally justifiable ground raised to ask for relief of nature prayed for in this petition - It is not case petitioners that Board has not exercised its power or jurisdiction in accordance with provisions of Act and/or Rules framed - It is also not case of petitioners that Board could not have issued certificate in question or that have failed to effectively exercise its power - Mere reference to provisions of Section of Cinematograph Act is inconsequential - It is prayer made by petitioners in abstract - Notwithstanding that it may be mentioned here that it becomes axiomatic from contents of certificate in question a photocopy whereof was brought on record by Anil that Board has certified film fit for public exhibition after its examination by members of Examining Committee mentioned rein and on recommendation - Certificate in question has been issued in due observance of provisions of Act - In facts and circumstances of case as mentioned hereinabove Court do not feel necessity of referring to provisions of Act and discuss mandates and powers - No reason or justification plausible and legally tenable brought to notice or made available to this Court prayers made in petition cannot be granted - Judgments cited at Bar by learned Advocate General and ASGI we are of opinion that given fact certificate granted by Board was challenged in petition and in Viacom ban orders imposed on exhibition of film by two States were under challenge strictly speaking se judgments are not attracted to facts attendant to instant writ petition - Similarly so far as judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India concerned rein Government had sought to retain with itself power to make such orders - Again Productions Union of India petition had sought quashing of decision taken by State of Uttar Pradesh suspending screening of film - Judgments also do not strictly fit in situation as in instant case – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. - The petitioners claim to be respectable citizens of India. Their credentials, as stated in the petition, are that petitioner no.1 is a businessman and a social activist; petitioner no.2 is a freelance journalist and political analyst; and petitioner no.3 is a practicing Advocate and a social activist. It is averred in the petition that this writ petition is filed by them in public interest, with no personal motive or grudge against the respondents.
2. The petition relates to the production and screening of a Hindi movie, titled 'Shikara', scheduled to be released today. The movie is stated to be relating the 'painful' event of migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley of Kashmir in 1990. The historical event is described by the petitioners themselves in para 3 of the writ petition which shall be quoted by us at appropriate place in this judgment.
3. The case of the petitioners, however, is that the movie, besides showing the 'painful migration of Kashmiri Pandits from Valley', is portraying shabby and cruel picture of the local population, especially of the particular community, which is not only against the actual facts and events, but also has the tendency of hurting the sentiments of all Kashmiris. In this regard, it is stated that the trailers of the movie, which are being screened on television and are also available on the internet, clearly point towards the biased and communal content of the movie. It is averred that whole of the local population, without any distinction between the civilians and militants, has been blamed for the unfortunate migration of Kashmir Pandits from the valley. Giving the transcription of some of the scenes / dialogues of the movie, it is alleged in the petition that these narrations and events depicted in the movie are concocted, and communal in nature and tenor. It is averred that the petitioners see a motive behind the false narration of facts in the movie and the timing of its release throughout the country on 07.02.2020. It is further stated in the petition that the atmosphere in the country is already polarized and emotionally charged. Some people who are ignorant of the events and have never visited Kashmir Valley, after watching the trailers of the movie on the internet have already started blaming particular community for mass migration of Kashmiri Pandits and have already issued a war cry against particular community. It is stated that in case the movie, with its false content, is allowed to be released, many Kashmir Muslims, more particularly students, who are studying in different States of India, are likely to be victimized by different vested interests and ignorant people. Furthermore, it is averred that post August 5, 2019, the security agencies have with hard efforts succeeded in maintaining calm in the Kashmir Valley, but all such efforts are likely to go in vain if the movie, with the concocted and fabricated content, is allowed to be released. According to the petitioners, the content of the movie is against the constitutional ethos.
4. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents may be directed: (i) to withhold the release of the movie till it is reviewed/scrutinized and censored by the appropriate authorities; (ii) to edit / remove the communal, inflammatory and frivolous content from the movie; (iii) to review the certificate issued with regard to the movie and censor the controversial and communal scenes / dialogues from it; and (iv) to ensure that all possible steps are taken to prevent polarization and communalization of atmosphere in the country, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. In the interim, the petitioners also prayed that till final disposal of the writ petition, the respondents may be directed to withhold the release of the movie which is scheduled for release today.
5. It may be mentioned here that the petition was presented before the Registry of the Court on 04.02.2020 and was listed before this Bench on 06.02.2020
