SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Ranjit Singh Poohla - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
CWP-25295-2022
Decided On : 09-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. G.B. Gilhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Central Government Counsel with Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.5 to 7. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.8 to 14

Headnote:(A) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 5B(2) - Writ petition seeking cancellation of film certification - The petitioner, citing possible promotion of community hatred and negative portrayal of Nihang Sikhs through the film 'Masand', challenged the certification issued by the Central Board of Film Certification - The portrayal in the film was argued to be defamatory and glorifying violence - The respondents contended that the film is fictional and does not directly relate to real persons - Further, the film had undergone due certification process, and prior objections were not raised - Dismissed for lack of merit as the portrayal does not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation under prevailing laws. (Paras 1-36)

(B) Freedom of Speech - Balancing freedom of expression and community sentiments - The portrayal of community figures in artistic expressions must be protected under the realms of freedom of speech, with reasonable restrictions that do not negate artistic expressions based on subjective interpretations. (Paras 1-36)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was initiated by a practicing Nihang seeking to cancel the film certification for 'Masand', claiming the film glorifies murderers and negatively portrays Nihang Sikhs, potentially causing community unrest. The movie was certified by the Central Board, which followed requisite guidelines and received no prior objections.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no basis for infringement of rights, and the film had valid certification under the Cinematograph Act. No adequate grounds were provided to challenge the issuer's authority or the film’s content.

Issues: The core issues included whether the film infringes the rights of individuals or communities and if the artistic expression warranted cancellation of its certification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech in a democratic society, ruling that the expression of artistic works should not be restricted based on subjective interpretations of community sentiments or character portrayal unless it directly contravenes established laws - dismissal of the petition was warranted.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. concerns about film's portrayal of sikh beliefs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's legal arguments on portrayal effects. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments regarding film’s fictional basis and certification. (Para 15 , 18)
4. court's dismissal of petition citing lack of evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 36)
5. petition lacks standing; certification upheld. (Para 28 , 32)

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 Nihang following all the customs and rituals of a life of Nihang Sikh. It is averred that there are various groups of Nihangs living in Punjab and all across the country with their distinct identity customs and rituals. The aforesaid Nihang groups have always promoted peace and harmony in society and abide by the laws of the country.

3. The petitioner claims to have watched the trailer of the aforesaid movie titled 'Masand' on a YouTube channel. The movie is promoted by its producer Living Dreams Entertainment and G.K. Digital. The portrayal of villain of the movie draws resemblance from Ajit Singh Poohla, the former Jathedar of Tarna Dal. It is pointed out that Chief of Nihang Jathebandi wear a Turban in a specific style giving a distinct identity showing the ranking of the Jathedar. He is shown in the movie wearing a Pharla (Turban) in the manner worn by Tarna Dal which is strikingly similar to the Pharla worn by Leader of their Nihang Singh Jathebandi and such portrayal is to the detriment of the tenets of Sikhism. It is further contended that misleading depiction of real life character of Baba Ajit Singh Poohla has been undertaken in the movie for vilification of their head, which is defamatory in context and that it seems to justify and glorify an act of murder. Additionally, it is pointed out that the poster of the movie itself claims to be inspired by true events and uses the claim 'Sadde Qatal Nhi Sodhna Kehande Ne' (i.e. we don't call it a murder but a correction).

4. It has been claimed that the feelings of the Nihang Singhs and people of Punjab in generally would be greatly hurt in the event the Nihang Sikhs are depicted in a negative manner and the same is likely to reduce the status, respect and image of the Nihang Singhs, notwithstanding the sacrifices made by them.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and accepts notice.

7. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5 to 7 and accept notice.

8. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No.8 to 14 and accept notice.

9. The counsel for the respondents contend that going by the averments contained in the petition and the fact that only a legal question arises for consideration, there is no necessity for filing of any separate responses and that they are ready for arguments on the basis of averments raised herein. Hence, the arguments were heard without any formal written responses.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Nihang Singhs are integral to Sikh religion and any negative portrayal of a Nihang Jathedar would be insinuating the practisin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top