LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The film ‘Aarakshan’ =This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for the reliefs specifically set out in the prayer portion of the writ petition. One of the reliefs that is sought for in this writ petition is to strike down the provision of Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being allegedly ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The other relief that is sought for is to quash and set aside the decisions taken by the respondents, namely State of Punjab, State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in their respective States for a specified period. -Therefore, since the expert body has already found that the aforesaid film could be screened all over the country, we find the opinion of the High Level committee for deletion of some of the scenes/words from the film amounted to exercising power of pre- censorship, which power is not available either to any high-level expert committee of the State or to the State Government. It appears that the State Government through the High Level Committee sought to sit over and override the decision of the Board by proposing deletion of some portion of the film, which power is not vested at all with the State. Page 12 of 14 23. It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the State and, therefore, the State shall maintain it effectively and potentially. Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the present case. As held in K.M Sankarapaa (Supra) it is the responsibility of the State Government to maintain law and order. 24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is required to be partly allowed in terms of the observations made herein. 25. We, therefore, set aside and quash the decision of the State Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the light of the observations made and we partly allow the petition to the aforesaid extent.


                                                                                 REPORTABLE


                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION




                   WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 345 OF 2011





M/S PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTIONS & ANR                 Petitioner(s)




                                            Versus




UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          Respondent(s)





                                       O R D E R




1.        This  writ   petition   is   filed  by   the   petitioners   praying   for   the


reliefs specifically set out in the prayer portion of the writ petition.


One of the reliefs that is sought for in this writ petition is to strike


down the provision of Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation)


Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") being allegedly ultra vires to


the   Constitution   of   India.     The   other   relief   that   is   sought   for   is   to


quash   and   set   aside   the   decisions   taken   by   the   respondents,


namely State of Punjab, State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar


Pradesh   suspending   the   screening   of   the   film   'Aarakshan'   in   their


respective States for a specified period.




                                          Page 1 of 14


2.          Notice   was   issued   on   this   writ   petition   making   the   same


returnable   today   so   as   to   enable   the   three   State   Governments   to


submit   their   reply/counter   affidavit.     However,   at   the   stage   of


issuing notice itself, we were informed by the counsel appearing for


the State of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh that so far as their States


are   concerned,   they   had   withdrawn   the   order   of   suspension   of


screening of the film 'Aarakshan'.




3.          The counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the State


of Andhra Pradesh are present in the Court.  Today also they stand


by   the   same   statement   which   they   had   made   on   the   last   date,


meaning   thereby,   that   they   had   lifted   the   orders   of   suspension   of


screening   of   the   film   in   their   respective   States.     Therefore,   to   our


understanding, the aforesaid film is being screened in the aforesaid


two States also as on this date.   This petition, therefore, has been


rendered   infructuous   so   far   as   the   States   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and


Punjab are concerned.




4.          The   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   has   filed   the   counter   affidavit


opposing   the   prayer   in   the   writ   petition   which   is   on   record.     We


have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively


today.




                                         Page 2 of 14


5.       Mr.   Harish   Salve,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the


petitioners   has   not   pressed   the   prayer   so   far   as   constitutional


validity   of   Section   6   of   the   Act   is   concerned.     However,   on   his


submission, we are keeping the said issue open to be agitated in an


appropriate   case   in   future,   if   necessary.     He,   however,   has


challenged   the   legality   of   the   decision   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh


Government suspending the screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the


entire   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh.     According   to   him,   the   aforesaid


exercise   of   power   of   suspension   of   the   screening   of   the   film


amounts   to   exercising   the   power   of   pre-censorship   which   is   being


exercised by the Government, although no such power vested on it.


According   to   him,   the   said   power   of   censorship   is   vested   in   the


Central Board of Film  Certification,  (hereinafter  referred  to as "the


Board")   and   in   the   Central   Government   as   provided   for   in   the


provisions   made   in   The   Cinematograph   Act,   1952.     He   has   also


submitted   that   the   power   that   is   sought   to   be   exercised   in   the


present   case   under   Section   6(1)   of   the   Act   is   also   without


jurisdiction   as   such   power   could   be   exercised   only   when   a   film   is


being   screened   and   shown   in   the   public   hall   and   also   when   a


contingency of the nature as mentioned in the said Section arises.


He submits that on satisfying the preconditions and only in such a




                                       Page 3 of 14


situation a power is vested in the State Government to suspend the


screening   of   the   film   for   a   specified   period.     He   also   submits   that


the aforesaid decision of the State Government is in violation of the


provisions   of   Article   19(1)   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and,


therefore, the same is required to be struck down and quashed.




6.        We   have   also   heard   Mr.   Chandiok,   learned   Additional


Solicitor   General,   who   submits   that   after   a   certificate   has   been


issued to a particular film by the Censor Board, the said film could


be screened in the entire country and the order which is passed by


the   State   Government   is   not   envisaged   as   it   practically   prohibits


screening of the film in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh.




7.        Mr.   U.U.   Lalit,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the


State of Uttar Pradesh has, however, taken us through the contents


of the counter-affidavit in support of his contention that the prayer


in writ petition cannot be granted by this Court.  He has submitted


that a very   high-level Committee has seen the film and thereafter


has given an opinion, according to which if and when the concerned


film is shown there is likelihood of breach of peace and also breach


of law and order situation and, therefore, the aforesaid decision of


suspending the screening of the film "Aarakshan" in Uttar Pradesh,





                                         Page 4 of 14


which has been taken in order to preserve and upkeep the law and


order situation in the State should be upheld.




8.       In   order   to   appreciate   the   aforesaid   contentions   of   the


counsel   appearing   for   the   parties,   we   have   gone   through   the


pleadings   of   the   parties   alongwith   the   documents   relied   upon   as


also the decisions which are referred to and relied upon.




9.       We have also perused the provisions of Section 6 of the Act


which   is   practically   the   foundation   and   basis   of   the   present   case.


Section   6(1)   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Cinemas   (Regulation)   Act,   1955


reads as follows:




        "6.       Power to the State Government or District

        Magistrate   to   suspend   exhibition   of   films   in

        certain   cases   -   (1)   The   State   Government,   in

        respect of the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh

        or   any   part   thereof,   and   the   District   Magistrate

        in   respect   of   the   district   within   his   jurisdiction

        may, if it or he, as the case may be, is of opinion

        that any film which is being publicly exhibited, is

        likely   to   cause   a   breach   of   the   peace,   by   order,

        suspend the exhibition of the films and thereupon

        the   films   shall   not   during   such   suspension   be

        exhibited   in   the   State,   part   or   the   district

        concerned,   notwithstanding                the      certificate

        granted under the Cintmatograph Act, 1952."




10.      Upon   going   through   the   records,   we   find   that   the   film


'Aarakashan'   was   submitted   to   the   Central   Board   of   Film




                                         Page 5 of 14


Certification   on   12.07.2011   for   certification.                 Upon   such


submission   of   the   film,   the   Chairperson   of   the   Board,   in   terms   of


the provisions of the Act and the Rules, invited the legal expert and


another expert who is related to dalit movement to watch the film at


the time when the Examining Committee was previewing the film.




11.      The Chairperson also saw to it that all the four members of


the   Examining   Committee   are   members   belonging   to   scheduled


casts/scheduled tribes and OBC category.  The said members of the


Examining Committee along with the legal expert as also the expert


related   to   dalit   movement   were   present   during   the   preview   of   the


film.     The   experts   as   also   the   Examining   Committee   gave   their


approval   for   grant   of   censorship   certificate   and   screening   of   the


film.   The   Examining   Committee   decided   to   give   U/A   certificate   to


the film  under  the theme category "social".    However, while taking


the aforesaid decision, a view was expressed by the members of the


Examining   Committee   for   deletion   of   the   word   'dalit'   from     the


trailor in reel no. 1, which was deleted by the producer of the film,


and   the   same   was   treated   as   voluntary   cut.     Thereafter,   the


certification was granted and a certificate was issued for screening


of the film.  The said certificate is annexed with the petition.





                                       Page 6 of 14


12.      Pursuant   to   grant   of   the   aforesaid   certificate,   the   film   is


being screened all over India except  for the State of Uttar Pradesh


where it is not being exhibited because of the aforesaid decision of


the State Government.  The State of Uttar Pradesh has given certain


reasons in their counter affidavit for the action taken leading to the


issuance   of   the   order   suspending   the   screening   of   the   film.     They


have also stated in their counter affidavit that the exhibition of the


film 'Aarakshan' if allowed would definitely cause an adverse effect


on the law and order situation in the State.




13.      Our attention is also drawn by the counsel appearing for the


State   of   U.P.   to   paragraph   3   of   the   said   affidavit   wherein   the


relevant   portion   of   the   report   given   by   the   High   Level   committee


constituted by the State Government is extracted.  A bare perusal of


the   same   would   indicate   that   in   the   report   the   High   Level


Committee   has   suggested   deletion   of   some   portion   from   the   film


without   which,   according   to   them,   the   film   cannot   be   screened   as


that may cause an adverse effect on the law and order situation in


the State.




14.      Before   dealing   with   the   said   contentions,   we   would   like   to


deal   with   the   provision   of   the   Act   on   the   basis   of   which   the





                                       Page 7 of 14


aforesaid decision is taken.  There is no dispute that the impugned


decision is taken in the purported exercise of power under Section 6


of the Act.  A bare perusal of the aforesaid  provision in Section 6 of


the   Act   would   make   it   crystal-clear   that   the   power   vested   therein


could   be   exercised   by   the   State   under   the   said   provision   when   a


film which is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of


peace.     Only   in   such   circumstance   and   event,   an   order   could   be


passed suspending the exhibition of the film.  




15.       The   expression  'being   publicly   exhibited'  and   the   word


'suspension'  are   relevant   for   our   purpose   and,   therefore,   we   are


giving emphasis on the aforesaid expression and the word.     When


it   is   said   that   a   film   is   being   publicly   exhibited,   it   definitely   pre-


supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for public and


in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of peace then in


that   event   such   a   power   could   be   exercised   by   the   State


Government.     Such   an   extra-ordinary   power   cannot   be   exercised


with   regard   to   a   film   which   is   yet   to   be   exhibited   openly   and


publicly in a particular State.  This view that we have taken is also


fortified   from   the   use   of   the   word   'suspension'  in   the   said   section.


The word `suspension' envisages something functional or something


which   is   being   shown   or   is   running.   Suspension   is   always   a




                                          Page 8 of 14


temporary phase, which gets obliterated as and when the previous


position is restored.  Therefore, the power as vested under Section 6


of   the   Act   could   not   have   been   exercised   by   the   State   of   Uttar


Pradesh   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   said   film   was   not   being


exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in U.P.  Consequently, at this


stage, when the film is not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls


publicly and for public viewing, neither an opinion could be formed


nor any decision could be taken that there is a likelihood of breach


of peace by exercising power purported under Section 6 of the Act.





16.       The counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that


in   fact   the   film   already   is   being   exhibited   in   the   State   of   Uttar


Pradesh  as a  High  Level  committee  has seen  the  film.     We  cannot


accept the aforesaid position as the expression specifically uses the


word  'publicly exhibited'  meaning thereby that it is  being  exhibited


all over and publicly for public viewing in the State.




17.       Besides, the contention of the State of U.P. that some of the


scenes of the film could create a breach of peace or could have an


adverse effect on the law and order situation cannot be accepted as


this film is being screened in all other States of India peacefully and


smoothly   and   in   fact   some   of   the   States,   where   this   film   is   being




                                        Page 9 of 14


screened, are also similarly sensitive States  as that of the State of


U.P.   In   such   States   the   film   is   being   screened   without   any


obstruction   or   difficulty   and   without   any   disturbance   of   law   and


order situation.




18.       So far the contention of the counsel appearing for the State


of Uttar Pradesh that the issue of reservation is a delicate issue and


is   to   be   handled   carefully   is   concerned,   we   are   of   the   considered


opinion   that   reservation   is   also   one   of   the   social   issues   and   in   a


vibrant   democracy   like   ours,   public   discussions   and   debate   on


social issues are required and are necessary for smooth functioning


of a healthy democracy.  Such discussions on social issues bring in


awareness which is required for effective working of the democracy.


In fact, when there is public discussion and there is some dissent


on   these   issues,   an   informed   and   better   decision   could   be   taken


which becomes a positive view and helps the society to grow.




19.       We may, at this stage, appropriately refer to the decisions of



this Court in the case of S.
                                     Rangaranjan   Vs.   P.
                                                                  Jagjivan Ram &


Ors.  reported   in   (1989)   2   SCC   574.     In   paragraph   36   of   the   said


judgment, this Court has stated thus:-




             "36.       The democracy is a government by the




                                        Page 10 of 14


                people   via   open   discussion.     The   democratic

                form of government itself demands its citizens

                an   active   and   intelligent   participation   in   the

                affairs   of   the   community.               The   public

                discussion   with   people's   participation   is   a

                basic   feature   and   a   rational   process   of

                democracy   which   distinguishes   it   from   all

                other   forms   of   government.     The   democracy

                can neither work nor prosper unless people go

                out   to   share   their   views.     The   truth   is   that

                public   discussion   on   issues   relating   to

                administration   has   positive   value.     What

                Walter   Lippman   said   in   another   context   is

                relevant here:


                                 When men act on the principle of

                       intelligence,   they   go   out   to   find   the

                       facts....   When   they   ignore   it,   they   go

                       inside   themselves   and   find   out   what   is

                       there.     They   elaborate   their   prejudice

                       instead of increasing their knowledge".




20.          In   paragraph   35,   this   Court   has   also   stated   that  in   a


democracy   it   is   not   necessary   that   everyone   should   sing   the   same


song.  Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken for


granted.




21.          Reference could also  be made to  the  decision  of  this Court



in    Union
                  of   India   Vs.  K.M.   Shankarappa  reported   in   (2001)   1


SCC   582.     In   the   said   case   constitutional   validity   of   Sections   3,   4


and   other   Sections   of   the   Cinematograph   Act,   1958   were


challenged.     In   paragraph   8   of   the   said   judgment,   this   Court   has





                                           Page 11 of 14


stated   that  once   an   expert   body   has   considered  the   impact   of   the


film  on  the   public  and has  cleared   the  film,   it  is  no  excuse  to  say


that   there   may   be   a   law   and   order   situation   and   that   it   is   for   the


State Government concerned to see that the law and order situation


is maintained and that in any democratic society there are bound to


be divergent views.





22.       In the present case, the Examining Committee of the Board


had   seen   the   film   along   with   the   experts   and   only   after   all   the


members   of   the   Committee   as   also   the   two   experts   gave   positive


views on the screening of the film, thereafter only the certificate was


granted. Therefore, since the expert body has already found that the


aforesaid   film   could   be   screened   all   over   the   country,   we   find   the


opinion   of   the   High   Level   committee   for   deletion   of   some   of   the


scenes/words   from   the   film   amounted   to   exercising   power   of   pre-


censorship,   which   power   is   not   available   either   to   any   high-level


expert   committee   of   the   State   or   to   the   State   Government.   It


appears   that   the   State   Government   through   the   High   Level


Committee sought to sit over and override the decision of the Board


by   proposing   deletion   of   some   portion   of   the   film,   which   power   is


not vested at all with the State.





                                          Page 12 of 14


23.        It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the


State   and,   therefore,   the   State   shall   maintain   it   effectively   and


potentially.  Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing,


screening   of   the   same   cannot   be   prohibited   in   the   manner   as



sought to be done by the State in the present case.  As held in K.M


Sankarapaa (Supra) it is the responsibility of the State Government


to maintain law and order.




24.        Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,


we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   present   writ   petition   is


required   to   be   partly   allowed   in   terms   of   the   observations   made


herein.




25.        We, therefore, set aside and quash the decision of the State


Government suspending the screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the


State of Uttar Pradesh in the light of the observations made and we


partly allow the petition to the aforesaid extent.





                                          .........................................................J.

                                                    (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)





                                            Page 13 of 14


                                   ........................................................J.

                                                 (ANIL R. DAVE)


New Delhi

August 19, 2011.





                                    Page 14 of 14