THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal Nos.1128 & 1129 of 2012 And
Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 & 26622 of 2012
24-09-2012
M/s. Suryalok Film Factory, Mumbai
R. Malleshwari and others
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. K. Durga Prasad
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M. Rajender Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No. 2: G.P. for Home
Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4: B. Mayur Reddy
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 1970(2) SCC 780
2 (1980) 1 SCC 43
3 (1996) 4 SCC 1
4 (2006) 8 SCC 433
5 2006(4) ALD 374
6 2012(2) ALD 445
Common Judgment: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra
Ghose)
Since the issue involved in the writ appeals and the writ petitions being
the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
The writ appeals are filed by the appellant/respondent No.4 aggrieved by
the interim orders dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.M.P.
Nos. 32956 of 2012 and 33929 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 25856 of 2012 and
26622 of 2012 respectively, whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge restrained
respondent No.4/the appellant herein and official respondents from releasing the
film titled as "Sorry Teacher" pursuant to the Certification made in
UA/DIL/2/13/2012/HYD, dated 16.7.2012, pending further orders.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing
of the writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012
also along with the writ appeals.
Learned counsel for the appellant firstly contends that the film is not yet
released and all the allegations which are made by the respondents-writ
petitioners are only speculative in nature, based on inference drawn in print
and electronic media, which cannot form the basis for finding against the
appellant at this stage. Learned counsel submits that the publicity material on
the basis of which inferences are drawn by the writ petitioners are not part of
the film and the posters/publicity material has been cleared by an independent
body, namely, Publicity Screening Committee of Films, IMPPA House, Mumbai-
400050, which is regulated by its own Regulations, as framed by the Government
of India. He further submits that the film has been granted Certificate for
restricted viewing under U/A category. It is also stated that the appellant/4th
respondent had applied for certification in Mumbai Region whereupon the Chief
Executive Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai vide his letter
No.15/4/2012-Mum, dated 21.6.2012 has permitted the producers to apply at
Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad as Mumbai Region do not have
Telugu speaking panel members. The members of the Revising Committee, whose
names are mentioned in the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film
Certification says that the body comprises of eminent male and female members,
who have certified the film after viewing it and the Presiding Officer has given
detailed reasons for granting U/A Certificate to the film in question. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Central Board of Film
Certification after considering the recommendations of the Members of the
Revising Committee has granted Certification to the film 'Sorry Teacher' for
theatrical release and he also drew our attention to the reasons recorded by the
said Revising Committee for granting U.A. Certificate to the film in question,
wherein the Revising Committee after viewing the film in question, came to the
conclusion that "the mannerisms have also changed and the teachers who are
raising hue and cry are unfit to work as teachers since they are not realizing
their duty and not appreciating the essence of the movie and the Committee
unanimously expressed its opinion that the cinema being a representation of the
changing social mores in the society, the movie 'Sorry Teacher' was a
representation of the said change". He, therefore, submitted that the decision
of the Revising Committee as approved by the Central Board of Film Certification
needs no interference. Therefore, the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge restraining the release of the film in question be vacated.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Board of Film Certification,
respondents 3 and 4 herein, also contended that the Revised Committee was right
in granting Certification to the film in question and he relied upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas vs. The Union of India1, Raj
Kapoor and Others vs. State and Others2, Bobby Art International and Others vs.
Om Pal Singh Hoon and Others3, Director General of Doordarshan and Others vs.
Anand Patwardhan and another4 and the decisions of this Court in Lakshmi Ganesh
Films, Hyderabad and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others5 and
Vadlapatla Naga Vara Prasad vs. Chair Person, Central Board of Film
Certification, Mumbai and others6, in support of the decision of the Revising
Committee.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
recommendations of the Revising Committee and on a consideration of the
aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, we are of the view that
the newspaper reports cannot be equated to documentary evidence against a party
and after considering Sections 5-A and 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for
short 'the Act'), which deal with the certification for exhibition of a film and
the principles for guidance in certifying films and the challenge which has been
thrown by the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 in respect of exhibition of the
film in question, we do not find that there is any reason to stop the film in
question. Further, the objectives of film certification as has been
specifically stated in the notification dated 6.12.2991 issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi will ensure that
(a) the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and
standards of society; (b) artistic expression and creative freedom are not duly
curbed; (c) certification is responsive to social change; (d) the medium of film
provides clean and healthy environment; and (e) as far as possible, the film is
of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard and according to us the
Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification certifying that
the viewing of the film by the children below the age of 12 years should be
considered by the parents/guardian of the child, satisfies the requirements of
Section 5-B of the Act.
It is evident that since the film is not yet released, the contentions of
the writ petitioners are based upon hear say evidence and are purely
speculative, based on inferences drawn in the print and electronic media.
Further the Revising Committee, which has examined the film has issued the
Certificate for restricted viewing in conformity with the guidelines issued by
the Government of India, by judging the film in its entirety for its over all
impact. The guidelines prescribed have been adhered to as is evident from the
reasons given in support of the Certification. Thus, the Certification made by
a High powered Board of Film Certification, which is a specialised composition
gives an un-rebuttable presumption in favour of the said statutory Certificate,
which cannot be rebutted merely by allegations of the writ petitioners. Within
the broad parameters of the guidelines, the film is required to be judged based
upon a criteria as to whether an average person applying contemporary community
standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the
prurient interest and the said test as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision fourth cited supra has been followed.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the Central Board of Film Certification
after thoroughly considering the recommendations of the Revising Committee and
after considering all the aspects referred to above, has granted certification
to the film in question. We, therefore, do not find that there is any reason to
interfere with the said order of the Revising Committee.
Accordingly, we allow the writ appeals and vacate the interim orders dated
3.9.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.M.P. Nos. 32956 of 2012 and
33929 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012. In view of
the orders passed in the writ appeals allowing the said appeals, no further
orders are necessary in the writ petitions.
Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012 are accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
__________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J
24-9-2012
