Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Alok Aradhe, Anil Kumar Jukanti, JJ.
M/s Ramadhuta Creations - Appellant
Versus
Telugu Desam Party - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos.56 and 59 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2024
These intra court appeals emanate from an order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34681 of 2023, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, namely Telugu Desam Party (hereinafter referred to as 'TDP') has been allowed. The appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The producer of the film submitted an application for censor certification of feature film 'Vyuham' before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The examining committee of the CBFC refused to certify the film for public exhibition. The Chairperson of CBFC referred the film for evaluation by the Revising Committee of the CBFC. The Revising Committee did not review the film due to the Model Code of Conduct in force in the State of Telangana. The producer filed a writ petition assailing the inaction of CBFC. The learned Single Judge directed the CBFC to consider the application for grant of censor certificate within ten days. Subsequently, a 'U' certificate was granted to the feature film and the producer was directed to display a disclaimer at the beginning of the feature film. The TDP filed a writ petition to quash the certificate issued by CBFC. The learned Single Judge held that TDP has locus to file the writ petition and quashed the certificate granted in favor of the producer. The appeals arise from this decision. The appellants contended that TDP does not have the locus to file the writ petition and that the Revising Committee is not required to record reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a movie. They also argued that the producer has the protection guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The TDP argued that it had invoked the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as its right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated. The TDP contended that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons for certifying that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition and that the decision-making process of the Revising Committee of CBFC is amenable to judicial review. The Court held that TDP is an aggrieved person and has the authority to maintain the writ petition. It also 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 case. The Court directed the Chairman to re-constitute the Revising Committee, if not already constituted, and to communicate its decision for certification of the film to the appellants on or before 09.02.2024.
JUDGMENT
1. These intra court appeals emanate from an order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34681 of 2023, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, namely Telugu Desam Party (hereinafter referred to as 'TDP') has been allowed. W.A.No.56 of 2024 has been filed by the Producer of the film, whereas W.A.No.59 of 2024 has been filed by the Director of the film. With regard to certification of Telugu feature film 'Vyuham' for public viewing is the issue involved in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. Appellant No.1 in W.A.No.56 of 2024 is the producer (hereinafter referred to as 'the producer') of a feature film titled 'Vyuham'. The producer on 19.10.2023 submitted an application for censor certification of feature film 'Vyuham' before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The examining committee of the CBFC viewed the film on 31.10.2023 and refused to certify the film as it is found that the film is not suitable for public exhibition.
3. Thereafter, on 01.11.2023, the Chairperson of CBFC referred the film for evaluation by the Revising Committee of the CBFC. The CBFC informed the producer on 03.11.2023 that Revising Committee shall not review the film as Model Code of Conduct is in force in the State of Telangana and certification of the film can be considered only after conclusion of the elections. The producer submitted a representation on 03.11.2023 itself to forthwith review the film. One Nara Lokesh submitted a complaint on 04.11.2023 to the CBFC not to issue the certificate for public exhibition of the feature film.
4. The feature film was scheduled to be released on 10.11.2023. On 23.11.2023, the producer filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.32374 of 2023 in which inaction on the part of CBFC in not certifying the film for public exhibition was assailed. Learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 28.11.2023 while disposing of the writ petition directed the Regional Office, CBFC to consider the application for grant of censor certificate within ten days in accordance with law.
5. Thereafter Mr. Nara Lokesh issued a notice calling upon CBFC not to issue censor certificate for public exhibition of the feature film. On 13.12.2023, 'U' certificate was granted to the feature film and the producer was directed to display a disclaimer at the beginning of the feature film that the feature film is based on true events with cinematographic liberties. Thereupon, the revised date of release of feature film was announced on 29.12.2023.
6. Thereupon, the TDP filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.34681 of 2023 in which a prayer was made to quash the certificate issued by CBFC in favour of the producer on the ground that the same is illegal and in violation of Section 5B(1) and (2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), violative of guideline No.2(xviii) of the Guidelines contained in S.O.836E, dated 06.12.1991 as well as Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 28.12.2023, by which operation of the certificate granted by CBFC was suspended for a period of three weeks.
7. The writ petition was thereafter heard. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 22.01.2024 inter alia held that TDP has locus to file the writ petition as it is a person aggrieved as per Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC and Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was further held that the record does not show that the Revising Committee while issuing certificate has recorded any reasons. The learned Single Judge quashed the certificate granted in favour of the producer and further directed the Regional Office, CBFC and the Revising Com
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 court emphasized the necessity for proper reasoning and adherence to natural justice in film certification processes, highlighting that insufficient consideration of defamation claims violates pr....
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....
The court emphasized that failure to challenge a decision undermines writ petition maintainability, highlighting the necessity of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.
Point of Law : Once film is granted certificate by competent statutory authority, i.e. Board, producer or distributor of the film has every right to exhibit film in a hall unless, of course, said cer....
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.
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
