The court upheld that artistic expression can be restricted under law, emphasizing that films promoting violence or communal disharmony are not suitable for public exhibition.

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present appeal was earlier filed as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to raise a challenge to the refusal of grant of certification of the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) for public exhibition of the Appellant’s film i.e., ‘Masoom Kaatil’ (Hindi).

2. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2022 observed that under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (‘Act of 1952’), an appeal would lie challenging an order refusing to grant a film certificate. It was observed that earlier the said appeal used to lie before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) constituted under Section 5D of the Act of 1952. The Court further observed that upon enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 the FCAT has since been abolished, the appeal would lie to the High Court.

2.1. The Court referred to the Office Order issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court dated 07.07.2021whereby any appeal under Section 5C of the Act of 1952, until the framing of the Rules in that regard was to be registered as ‘RFA-IPD’.

2.2. In the light of the said observation the original writ petition filed was directed to be renumbered as ‘RFA-IPD 01/2023’.

Appellant’s Case

3. The Appellant herein is the proprietor of M/s Sanvika Production (New Delhi) and has produced and directed a total of three (3) Hindi Films. The subject matter of the present appeal is the third Film produced and directed by the Appellant i.e., ‘Masoom Kaatil’ (‘subject matter film’).

3.1. The Appellant applied to the CBFC for certification of the subject matter film on 09.08.2022, the said application is annexed with the appeal as ‘Annexure 1’. It is stated that the Appellant also paid the requisite fee of Rs. 23,800/- along with the said application.

3.2. The subject matter film was examined by the Examining Committee at Delhi and the Chairperson on his own accord referred the film for further examination to the Revising Committee under Rule 24(1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (‘Rules of 1983’). The said information was given to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.08.2022 addressed by the Regional Officer, CBFC Delhi.

3.3. It is stated that before issuing the said letter to the Appellant the concerned person from the CBFC, Delhi on 18.08.2022 had a conversation with the Appellant, wherein the Appellant was verbally advised that the subject matter film is not worth giving the film certificate for reasons recorded in the examination report of the Examining Committee and therefore, the film is being sent to the Revising Committee at Mumbai for further examination. It is stated that the Appellant herein infact requested the concerned person at CBFC, Delhi to suggest some cuts in the film and give a certificate under ‘A’ category instead of ‘U/A’ category, but the said request of the Appellant was not acceded to.

3.4. It is stated that the re-screening of the Appellant’s film was done by the Revising Committee on 08.09.2022 at Mumbai. It is stated that the said Revising Committee refused to give certificate to the Film of the Appellant vide impugned order dated 19.09.2022 and enlisted the reasons for not granting certificate to the subject matter film. The said reasons were to the effect that the (i) film justifies vigilantism; (ii) film is communal in its portrayal; (iii) film is full of gruesome violence, killings, human cannibalism, expletives; (iv) film shows extreme violence on animals, communal and cast remarks; (v) film denigrates religion