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

2009 Supreme(All) 3034

2010 (71) ACC 882
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LUCKNOW BENCH)
DHARAM VEER SHARMA, J.
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1176 of 2002
Decided On: September 1, 2009
YASH JOHER AND KARAN JOHAR Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. Opp. Parties

Advocates Appeared
Counsel for the Petitioners: Chandra Shekhar Sinha.
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, A.G.A.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that standing up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself does not constitute an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as emphasized in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bijoe Emmanuel and others v. State of Kerala and others.

Headnote:

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act - Film Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham - Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 - Summary of the relevant acts and sections discussed by the court: The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, particularly section 3, which deals with the prevention of singing of the Indian National Anthem and causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing. The court also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karan Johar v. Union of India, which related to the allegations made in the complaint and the use of the National Anthem in the film Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham. The court also cited the significance of the National Anthem, National Flag, and National Song as discussed in Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and another. The court highlighted the legal principles established in Bijoe Emmanuel and others v. State of Kerala and others, emphasizing that there is no provision of law obliging anyone to sing the National Anthem and that standing up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself does not constitute an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.

Fact of the Case:

The complaint was filed against the producers and director of the film Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, alleging that a scene in the film constituted an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The complainant claimed that the scene depicted disrespect to the National Anthem, leading to the summoning of the petitioners to face trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case was constituted punishable under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, based on the statements of the witnesses and the allegations made in the complaint. The court also noted that the petitioners did not turn up to explain the situation and failed to produce the authenticated copy of the movie before the court. The court rejected the petitioners' application for exemption of personal appearance, as it was against the facts. The court further emphasized that the petitioners should have availed the alternative remedy under section 245 Cr.P.C. by moving an application for discharge instead of rushing to the court by filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issues: The issues revolved around whether the scene in the film Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham constituted an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and whether the petitioners should have availed the alternative remedy under section 245 Cr.P.C. by moving an application for discharge instead of filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case was constituted punishable under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and that the petitioners should have availed the alternative remedy under section 245 Cr.P.C. by moving an application for discharge instead of rushing to the court by filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 14.9.2009.

JUDGMENT

D.V. SHARMA, J.

1. The instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 17.4.2002 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow who after recording the statements of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and further proceeding under section 202 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of record, was satisfied that prima facie the petitioners committed the offence of section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and issued process under section 204 Cr.P.C. and without appearing before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistr.ate they approached this Court and the operation of the impugned order was stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.7.2002.

2. Factual matrix is as under Opposite party No.2 Pratap Chandra, son of Late Mohan Lal, R/o 4/1, Vivek Khand, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners who were the producer and Director of the film Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham on the ground that while watching the movie in theater Novelty situated at Lalbagh, Lucknow, the complainant found several irregularities which constitute offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Relevant extracts of the complaint are reproduced as under:"1. That the present complaint petition is being filed, being aggrieved with a particular scene of the famous film "Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham", produced by the opposite party No. 1, directed by the opposite party No. 2 which was permitted by the opposite party No.3 for the exhibition to the public all over India or abroad. The film mentioned above is being exhibited to the public of our Great Nation in various cinema halls throughout. The Cinema halls where the above film is exhibited are governed with the relevant rules and regulations which are to be implemented by the State and Central Government.

6. That after interval of the film mentioned above, after about one hour there is a scene in the film annual function of a school giving primary education. Where, a student of IV standard, named as 'Krishi' was there with his parents and other family members, this was only the student has to perform in the annual function with a song. All the invited guardians, students, staff of the school was standing here and there, all were requested / called by the teacher to sit down. Pasteurization of the scene is fully focused on the Shahrukh Khan, Kajol, Kareena Kapoor and Farida Jalal. After delivery of some dialogues between father, mother of that child/student i.e. Shahrukh Khan and Kajol respectively they all take their seats. It is necessary to mention here that this was only the student who was called to perform in the annual day function of the school.

7. That next, in the scene, after the settings the announcement is made by the teacher hosting the annual day programme, she called the Krishi the student to recite the poem. The student came on the stage on the other hand in the scene his mother i.e. Shahrukh, was delivering some dialogues with each other and lastly mother says' GA DO RE MI' the child i.e. student at once started National Anthem of our Great Nation India, with him other students also recited the National Anthem. It is also shown that the other ones were started standing after some movements, the student breaked the National Anthem in last line, when he stopped he said sorry.

Then his mother i.e. Kajol completed the remaining lines. This took much time than the prescribed time, when he started National Anthem the public seeing the movie was sitting except some ones.

8. That besides this every day lakhs of people seeing the movie are insulting the National Anthem. Because opposite party No.1 and No. 2 has not given any caution in scene that can alert the public to stand properly in Honour of National Anthem. While it is fundamental duty of every citizen, Article 51-A clause (b) specifically says, that it is fundamental duty of every citizen to honour National anthem, op



















































































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