The court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the principle of forum conveniens in deciding the maintainability of a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside Certificate No. DIL/3/10/2021-THI dated 30.12.2021 issued to the movie namely, “HOLY WOUND” by the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. Further prayer has been made for stopping release of the said silent movie namely, “HOLY WOUND” on OTT platform/Youtube etc. or on any other social media platform run by the respondent no. 3 – Sahasrara Cinemas Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala being blasphemous in nature, hurting the religious sentiments of the petitioners as well as the Christian community at large.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trailer of the movie namely, “HOLY WOUND” is available in various social media platforms from which it could be seen that the film depicts sexual relationship of two female characters, who have been in emotional relationship since childhood and are separated when one of them joins a religious congregation in a Catholic Church. After lapse of few years, both of them reunite and continue their inordinate sexual passion. It is further submitted that the religious life of a catholic nun has been portrayed in the said movie as lesbian which can be deciphered from the description given at the link available on ‘Youtube’. The content in the movie is highly derogatory which clearly tarnishes the reputation of Catholic Church and its members which in turn would demoralize the members who joined in the priestly order and nunship. The said depiction might have been done with an intention to commit the action of blasphemy in order to hurt the religious feelings of the Christians. The respondent no. 4 ought to have followed the “Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition” wherein Clause-1 provides that the objectives of film certification will be to ensure that the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of the society. As per the said clause, the medium of film should provide clean and healthy entertainment and as far as possible the film should be of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard. According to Clause-2(ix) of the said Guidelines, the Board of Film Certification must ensure that scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented. Soon after the trailer was released, the petitioner no. 1 received several phone calls inquiring as to whether such things happen inside the convents which disturbed her mental disposition. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Jethmalani & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2011) 8 SCC 1 has held that the rights of citizens under Article 19(1) of the Constitution have to be balanced vis-a-vis Article 21 and the latter rights cannot be sacrificed as it would lead to detrimental consequences and even anarchy. It is also submitted that no doubt the constitutional rights are prime, yet are possibly not made absolute as they may come into conflict with each other and when competing, they have to be qualified and balanced.

3. Learned ASGI appearing on behalf of the respondent-UoI, at the outset, raises issue with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition. It is vehemently argued that the head office of the “Film Certification Board” is situated in Mumbai and the impugned certificate has been issued by the regional office situated at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. Further, even a small part of cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed without entering into the merit of the case for want of jurisdiction.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have primarily challenged the certificate issued by the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, T