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

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
Andhra Association of Telangana -Petitioner
versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad & Ors.
-Respondents
Writ Petition No.15355 of 2015
Decided on 4.6.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P Lalitha Kamesh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General
For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: G.P. for Cinematography
For the Respondent No.4: GP. For Women Development and Child Welfare (TG)
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. M. Surender Rao, Senior Counsel
For the Respondent Nos.6 & 7:Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioner failed to establish prima facie tenability of contentions, hence no interference called for.

Headnote:Cinematograph Act, 1952 — Section 5-B (2) — Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 — Section 2 (a) — Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 — Rule 22 — Word Pori suffixed to title of film objectionable — Petitioner seeks that exhibition of film with aforesaid title be interfered with by Court — As it amounts to showing disrespect to girls of young/marriageable age of Andhra region — Examining committee as well as Board — Which consist of large representative body including women members satisfied with film and certified — It for universal exhibition by granting U certificate — Judicial review still available against said certificate — But petitioner not able to establish any infringement vis-a-vis freedom of expression guaranteed under Constitution of India — Certification of film and its proposed exhibition cannot be interfered with merely on perception of petitioner. (Para 10)

       Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.—At the stage of admission, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the place of party-in-person, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for first respondent, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for fourth respondent and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for the fifth respondent. Respondents 2 and 3, the Department of Cinematography and the Telangana Film Chamber of Commerce, are not involved in the certification of the film in controversy and respondents 6 and 7, being actress and distributor, are not necessary to be heard.

2. Petitioner questions the title of the film Andhra Pori, which is proposed to be exhibited on 5.6.2015. Petitioner states that after bifurcation of the State there are many people from Andhra area settled and residing in Telangana State and depiction of the name of the film as aforesaid is likely to be misutilized by way of degrading the values of girls in Andhra area and residents originating from Andhra area settled in Telangana area.

3. For the purpose of appreciating the exact objection of the petitioner, it is appropriate to extract para 8 of the affidavit, as under, which, inter alia, states that the word Pori suffixed to the title of the film is objectionable. Petitioner, therefore, seeks that the exhibition of the film with the aforesaid title be interfered with by this Court as it amounts to showing disrespect to the girls of young/marriageable age of Andhra region.

“8. I submit that the very selection of the name Andhra Pori is combination of Two States slang, the earlier prefix Andhra is from Andhra slang is the name of the region of Andhra state and the suffix Pori is Telangana used Slang which literally means the Girl of a young age/marriageable age. This synomos of Pori are Ammayi, Pilla, Yuvathi, Bidda form the respectable pronunciation of calling a girl of youth age on the other hand the words Guntadi, Kurradi, Pori are form the objectionable pronunciation to de-grade the self respect of the girl of young age promoting/raising the modesty of the girl of youth age which is within the meaning of definition under Section 2 sub-section (a) of Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 which reads as follows:

“Advertisement includes any notice, circular, liable, wrapper, or other documents and also includes any visible Representation made by means of any light, sound, smoke or gas.”

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the Central Board of Film Certification has appointed an examining committee, which has certified the film for unrestricted universal public exhibition. The file of the first respondent is placed before this Court, which shows that the Board required an examining committee to examine the film and then suggest its opinion and the report of the committee states that it had held detailed discussion on the film, treatment and presentation of the film in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government under Section 5B (2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short the Act) and suggested deletion of certain words from the portion of the film and also suggested a visual to be shown in a flash by referring to guidelines 2(viii), 2 (xii) and 2 (vii) respectively and recommended to grant U certificate with cuts unanimously. Accordingly, certificate was issued by CBFC on 28.5.2015, after being satisfied with the modifications suggested by the Board have actually been carried out.

5. Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5, has placed strong reliance upon Section 3 of the Act, which provides that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and not less than 12 and not more than twenty-five other members appointed by the Central Government and such large body is entrusted with the certification of the film. Learned senior counsel also points out that the Board appoints an examining committee for the pur






























































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top