Direction given to Board for granting "A" certificate.

(PRAYER: Writ Appeal No.1437 of 2006 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.03.2006 made in W.P.No.1518 of 2005.

Writ Appeal No.1438 of 2006 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.04.2006 made in W.P.M.P.No.12768 of 2006 in W.P.No.1518 of 2005.)

The Hon’ble Chief Justice:

“Kutra Pathirikai” is the feature film produced by the first respondent. The film revolves around the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the subsequent events including the investigation and the fate of assassins or some of the abettors/conspirators. The love story woven around two police officials having no connection with the assassination of late Prime Minister or the attempted assassination of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, which forms only an infinitesimal portion of the film. After making the film, the producer submitted an application for the grant of certificate to the Central Board of Film Certification (‘Board’ for short) on 31.12.1992. However, the certificate for exhibition of the film was refused by the Censor Board on 31.02.1994 and that too, after the intervention of this Court. It would be relevant to quote the reasons by the Examining Committee (for trailer) as per the expert opinion of the Home Ministry which run as follows:

“As the criminal case pertaining to the assassination of late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi is sub-judice and the proceedings of the Jain Commission and report of Verma Commission are yet to be finalized, it would not be in the judicial and public interest to permit the release of any Trailer/Film on the assassination of late Prime Minister. After the finalisation of the criminal case, the Enquiry Commission’s report, the certificate of the film could be considered subject to the scrutiny of the script and preview of the film from the public interest angle”.

2. On such refusal, the producer preferred an appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which was allowed by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.1994, directing the Board to grant “A” certificate subject to such cuts/deletions as mentioned in para 17 of the said order. The producer accepted the said cuts and thereafter submitted the fresh print of the film on 25.07.1994. The Board, instead of considering the film, for the grant of certificate as directed by the Tribunal, chose to challenge the order dated 27.06.2004 by filing Writ Petition No.13652 of 1994 on the ground that the impugned order is erroneous in law and certificate for exhibition of the film should not be granted. A Division Bench of this Court in its detailed order dated 06.10.2004 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 27.06.1994 and directed to revoke the certificate ordered by the Tribunal.

3. Questioning the same, the producer preferred appeal before the Supreme Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2000 by modifying the order of the High Court with a direction to the Tribunal to re-consider the matter in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court and the relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as follows:

“When the case was taken up, Mr.Soli S.Sorabjee, learned Attorney General, appearing for the respondent stated that there has been a material change after the judgment of the High Court in two respects. First, the trial of the accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination is over and the second is that the Jain Commission has also submitted its report and therefore, these two grounds were not available at that moment. However, with regard to the other aspects, the reasons referred to by the High Court, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4 at page No.95, are factually correct and exists and the tribunal may be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of subsequent events that have taken place”.

4. The Tribunal, therefore, aga