The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact on public sentiments when allowing the exhibition of films with religious connotations.

1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners, who appear to be practicing advocates challenging the exhibition of the film namely 'Goliyon-ki-Rasleela, Ram-Leela' on the ground that the said film has no concern with the life sketch of Lord Ram worshiped by crores of Hindus and have faith as 'Maryada Purushottam'. Ramleela signifies as dramatic folk re-enactment of the life of Lord Ram and in the name of Ramleela, some story which has no concern with Lord Sriram is exhibited. The film is a love story of some Ram Bhai and Leela should not be permitted to be exhibited with the name of Ramleela. It is submitted that the date of exhibition of the film is 15th of November, 2013 and exhibition of the aforesaid film may be banned. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Union of India has submitted that in compliance of the order passed in W.P. No. 17779 of 2013 filed by Shri Anand Chawla, a representation was filed before the respondent No. 1 - Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai, who have considered the representation of Shri Anand Chawla and rejected it vide order dated 08/11/2013.

2. For the ready reference we quote the entire order of respondent No. 1, which reads thus:--

CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

BHARAT BHAVAN,

91-E, Walkeshwar Road,

Mumbai - 400006

Dated:

08/11/13

Sub: "Examination of Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film "Goliyon Ki Raas Leela Ram-Leela".

The Central Board of Film Certification, (CBFC) Mumbai has received the Representation of Shri Anand Chawla, Advocate, LIG 26, first floor, Govind Bhavan Colony, Near RTO, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur. This representation was handed over by Shri Anand Chawla to CEO, CBFC, Mumbai in person. The representation states that the new film by Shri Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Ram-Leela contain visuals and dialogues, which hurt the sentiments of Hindu's, who consider Lord Ram as Maryada Purushottam. The views of Shri Chawla were also heard in person.

As directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Writ Petition No. 17779/2013) the fact stated by Shri Anand Chawla, about the film content hurting the sentiments of Hindu believers was appraised to the Panel Members of the Examining Committee of the CBFC. The film was examined by CBFC on October 25th, 2013 by and Examining committee constituted in such a way to represent different shades of opinion. Following were the Members of the Examining Committee.

1. Mr. Vijay K. Singh, Member

2. Mr. Manoj J. Katpara, Member

3. Ms. Shweta Jadhav, Member

4. Ms. Swati Deshpande, Member

5. Smt. Vijaya Chavak, Examining Officer

In addition, a senior Board member of CBFC, who is also a Professor of Sociology was co-opted as an expert Member.

The Members of the Examining Committee found that the film by Shri Sanjay Leela Bhansali had no connection with 'Ram Leela' which deals about the life of Lord Shriram and instead the film was social drama, inspired by William Shakespeares 'Romeo & Juliet'. The name of the film is 'Goliyon Ki Rassleela Ram-Leela', where the names of the lead characters are Ram Bhai and Leela. The only reference to 'Ravan Dahan' was germane to the script of the story, and even its intention was to convey the coming together of two warring clans rather than to promote enmity. The committee found the overall portrayal of Ram to be positive, as the protagonist strives for peace rather than war.

Having observed the content of the film, the Examining Committee found that the film had no objectionable content which would hurt the sentiments of Hindus. It granted the film 'U/A' certificate, indicating parental guidance, after recommending 12 cuts, to reduce aggressive language, gestures etc.

In view of the above, it was found that the apprehension expressed by Shri Anand Chawla were unfounded, as the film contained no direct objectionable content. It is further affirmed that CBFC, applied due care and diligence in examining