S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, C. SARAVANAN
BR Aravindakshan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through it`s Home Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner''S representation dated on 05.11.2022, 06.11.2022 and 27.04.2023 given by the petitioner and completely band the film “The Kerala Story” in cinema halls and all other platforms.)
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a journalist and a public spirit person has filed this writ petition with a prayer to consider his representations dated 05.11.2022, 06.11.2022 & 27.04.2023 and to completely ban the film “ The Kerala Story” in Cinema Halls and other platforms.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject movie is likely to be released on 05.05.2023 in four languages namely Tamil, Telugu, Hindi and Malayalam and the story line of the film is based on false information without any supporting documents. It is his further grievance that the release of the movie is likely to promote enmity
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in film certification matters and highlighted the availability of remedies under the C....
The Court held that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a film with excisions and that no reasons were assigned by the Revising Committee in this ca....
The authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.
Artistic freedom of expression under the Cinematograph Act must be upheld, and censorship must consider the overall social message of a film without imposing undue restrictions.
The judgment establishes the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the limitations on this right under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and the legal framework provided by the Cinematogra....
The court's jurisdiction under Article 32 and the option to pursue relief through appropriate proceedings before the High Court under Article 226.
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 high....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article