Disposed

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale v. Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014PIL/219/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directions to frame guidelines for obscene content in movies and TV serials. The Court recorded the existing central government guidelines under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and disposed of the petition as no further action was required.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of after recording the existing guidelines issued under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs Union of India… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

916.pil.219.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 219 OF 2014

¶4

Shri Vijay P. Bhosale ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Manoj Patil,for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. S. V. Bharucha a/w Mr. S. M. Shah, for the Respondent-Union of India.

¶7

CORAM :- MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE :- DECEMBER 16, 2014.

¶9

P. C.:

¶10

The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondents to frame certain guidelines in respect of the movies and T. V. Serials, which containing the obscene messages and vulgar words.

¶11

2 Mrs. Bharucha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of India places on record a copy of the guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act,1952. The guidelines indicate that a film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact

¶12

Aswale 1/2

¶13

916.pil.219.14

¶14

and is examined in the light of the period depicted in the film and the contemporary standards of the country and the people to whom the film relates, provided that the film does not deprave the morality of the audience. The guidelines indicate the objectives of Film Certification and how the objectives are to be achieved.

¶15

3 The guidelines are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Having gone through the guidelines, we are of the view that nothing further is required to be done in this Public Interest Litigation, wherein the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondents to frame guidelines in respect of the movies and T. V. Serials, which contain obscene messages and vulgar words and therefore badly affecting the social life of the society.

¶16

4 In view of the above guidelines, nothing further is done in the present Public Interest Litigation.

¶17

5 After taking guidelines on record, the Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

(B. P. COLABAWALLA , J.)

¶20

Aswale 2/2

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale v. Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale v. Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Mohanlal Kankriya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sidheshwar Machhindra Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajamma Vishwanath Sassatte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swast Dhanya Dukandar Sanghatana, Jalna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Raghunath Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. S. K. D. Realty, through Partners Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Backward Class Boys Hostels, Padegaon, through Superintendent, Shri. Devche Devram Hanumant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Grainotech Industries Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Sudhir Vaidya Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, through Managing Director and Ors.

Marin Drive Hospitality and Realty Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and 3 Others

Hubtown Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation and 7 Ors.