Film certification must balance artistic expression with societal standards; mere nudity or controversial themes do not inherently justify censorship without substantive context.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the producer, director and script writer of the feature film, “KA bodyscapes”. According to the petitioner, “KA bodyscapes” ('the film') portrays through its protagonists the attitude of the society towards homosexuality and feminism. It is stated that the film revolves around the experiences of three protagonists in the film, Haris, a gay free spirited painter, his love interest, Vishnu, a Hanuman bakth from a conservative Hindu right wing family and Sia, a feminist from a conservative Muslim family. According to the petitioner, the film touches upon the aggression shown by right wing activists towards artists and writers and it highlights the struggles of their friend Sia, who rebels against dehumanising surveillance at her work place and misogynist punishments meted out to menstruating women.

WPC 27418/16 2

2. The petitioner approached the second respondent, the Regional Officer of the Central Board of Film Certification ('the Board' for short) for certification of the film for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('the Act'). On receipt of the application, the Board constituted an Examining Committee as provided for under Rule 22 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 ('the Rules'). The Examining Committee, after viewing the film, recommended to the Board to refer the film to the Revising Committee, as provided for under Rule 24 of the Rules. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Examining Committee, the Chairman of the Board referred the film to the Revising Committee at the Regional Office of the Board at Chennai. The Revising Committee consisting of a member of the Board and eight others, after viewing the film, recommended to the Board to refuse certification to the film on the ground that it contravenes paragraphs 1(a), 1(d), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(xii), 2(xiii), 3 (i) and 3(ii) of the Guidelines issued by the Central Government for certification of film for public exhibition ('the Guidelines').

WPC 27418/16 3 The decision of the Revising committee has been forwarded to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 communication. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the Revising Committee and hence, this writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this matter by the respondents supporting the impugned decision. According to the respondents, the film contains scenes that promote gay and homosexuality, nudity that contains vital parts of the male nude body and there are many vulgar scenes and dialogues throughout the film, which contravenes para 2 (vii) of the Guidelines which provides that films for public exhibition shall not contain scenes offending human sensibilities by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the film contains scenes showing menstrual blood and sanitary napkins, posting of pictures of menstrual blood stains in the sanitary napkins in the face book etc. that contravenes para 2(ix) of the Guidelines which provides that films for public exhibition shall not contain scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner. It is WPC 27418/16 4 also stated in the counter affidavit that the film contains scenes that are ridiculing, insulting and humiliating Hindu Religion, in particular, portraying Hindu Gods in poor light with both visuals and dialogues by throwing off the portrait of Lord Hanuman to the floor, the Hindu God 'Hanuman' is shown as coming in the Books titled 'I am a Gay' and other homosexual books that contravenes Para 2(xii) of the Guidelines which provides that films for public exhibition shall not contain visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups. In short, the stand of the respondents is that the film was refused certification as it contravenes Guidelines in paragraphs 1(a), 1 (d), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(xii), 2(xiii), 3(i) and 3(ii) of the Guidelines.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent