US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Ranjit Singh Poohla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - The instant writ petition invokes jurisdiction of this Court for cancellation of the Certificate granted by Central Board of Film Certification granted to the Punjabi Movie titled 'Masand' stated release on 10th of November 2022 on the ground that the same is likely to promote against the values, religious symbols and sentiments of Sikh religion and promote community hatred as the trailer of the movie shows the character of villain to draw similarity with life of a deceased Jathedar Ajit Singh Poohla (Head of Nihang Sect, Tarna Dal), who was murdered by some radical elements and glorifies the murderers to have done the right thing.
2. The averments as contained in the petition shows that the petitioner, who is present Jathedar/Head of Nihang Singh Jathebandi Group namely Tarna Dal Misl Shaheed Bhai Taru Singh Poohla and is a practising Nih
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....
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....
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 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 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 authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.
Point of Law : Rule 24(12) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 would make it abundantly clear that if the Chairman of the Board disagrees with the recommendations of a Revising Committee....
Licensing authorities must deny licensure to unsanctioned occupants; ownership or leasehold rights are essential for the issuance of cinematograph licences to ensure public safety.
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