Dismissed

Mr Raj Kaluram Rathod v. Mr Salman Saleem Khan and 4 Other

Bombay HC9 Oct 2015PIL/81/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL under Article 226 challenging alleged offensive scenes in the film Bajrangi Bhaijaan, seeking deletion, stays on exhibition and telecasting, and policy framing under the Cinematograph Act. The Court noted the film had already been released with proper certification and held that no reasons existed to interfere with that decision, dismissing the PIL as unentertable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Raj Kaluram Rathod Vs Mr Salman Saleem Khan and 4… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2015)

(PILL 124 of 2015)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 124 OF 2015

¶6

Raj Kaluram Rathod ….Petitioner Vs. Salman Salim Khan & Ors. ….Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr.Ram Mani Upadhyay for Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Chirag Mody a/w. Mr. Nirav Shah a/w. Munaf Virjee a/w. Mausher Kohli i/b. DSK Legal for Respondent No.1

¶10

Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Sanjay Kadam a/w. Ms. Apeksha Sharma a/w. Sanjeel Kadam i/b. Kadam & Co. for Respondent No.3

¶11

Mr.D.A.M. Sethna a/w. D. P.Singh a/w. Ms.Ruju Thakar for Respondent Nos.4 and 5

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2015

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶16

By this petition, which is filed in the form of PIL under Article 226

¶17

of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

(a) This Honorable Court is prayed to issue necessary directions to the Respondent No.5 to take more powerful and creative steps to keep alive the true spirit of the provisions

¶19

of The Cinematograph Act and to frame a transparent policy for appointment of honest officers as CEO and members of

Censor board.

1/5

(PILL 124 of 2015)

(b) This Honorable Court is prayed to issue directions to the Respondent No.4 to take utmost care & effective steps during special screening of any film/video/documentary before issuance of censor certificate; regarding scenes of hurting religious sentiments of any religion/cast and sect as per section 5(B) (2) of the Cinematograph Act, and accordingly fix responsibilities to the officers of Respondent No.4 if censor certificate is granted to any such film/video/documentary where such intentional offensive act are shown and exhibited.

¶25

(c) This Honorable Court is prayed to hold that the scene; dancing Respondent No.1 wearing shoes on the sacred platform of deity Hanuman and hitting GULAL by legs in the song of Hindi Feature Film, “BAJRANGI BHAIJAAN” is an intentional act at the hands of the Respondent No.1 & 2, hurting religious emotions of Hindus and the said scene is required to be deleted and removed from the said feature film.

¶26

(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, exhibit of the said film namely “BAJRANGI BHAIJAAN” on

¶27

any media platform; without removal/deletion of above stated offensive scenes in any manner be stayed.

2/5

(PILL 124 of 2015)

(e) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the screening, telecasting and exhibition of the said Feature Film namely “BAJRANGI BHAIJAAN” without removal/deletion of above stated offensive scenes; by the Respondent No.3; on its satellite channel on dated 11.10.2015 be stayed.

¶32

(f) Interim and ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause

¶33

(d) & (e).

¶34

(g) Any other relief in the nature of the present case”.

¶35

It is alleged by the Petitioner that in the feature film 'Bajrangi Bhaijaan' which is going to be broadcasted on television on Sunday i.e. on 11^th October, 2015., it is shown that the hero of the film dances in front of big Idol of Deity Hanuman, wearing shoes. It is submitted that this scene hurts the religious sentiments of Hindus.

¶36

It is an admitted position that the film has been released quite

¶37

some time ago in theaters all over the world after certificate was granted by the Central Board of Film Certification. The Central Board of Film Certification, which is a competent authority under the Cinematograph Act has not taken any steps and has issued a certificate for distribution and exhibition of the said film.

¶38

In our view, there is an alternate remedy also viz. filing of appeal or revision. According to the Petitioner though he has approached the

¶39

3/5

¶40

4 - (PILL 124 of 2015)

¶41

Revisional Authority, no decision has been taken. We are of the view that since the film has been released and certificate has been issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the said Authority.

¶42

In our view, there is no substance in the submissions made by the Petitioner and also in the other allegations which are made by the Petitioner in the PIL filed by him. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. PIL is dismissed.

¶43

[Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

Vaishali Tikam

4/5

(PILL 124 of 2015)

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Order.

¶50

5/5

Mr Raj Kaluram Rathod v. Mr Salman Saleem Khan and 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Raj Kaluram Rathod v. Mr Salman Saleem Khan and 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Dharmdas Khobragde and Anothers Vs Food Safety and Standard Authority, through Its Chief Executive Officer New Delhi and Others

Pritam S/O Saroromal Chawla and 6 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and 4 Ors.

Paramjeet Singh Kalsi Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary (Transport), Home Department Mumbai and Others

Arun Ganesh Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Dattatraya Pandurang Anantwar Vs the Regional Manager and Others

Jalgaon Zilla Adiwasi Malhar Mahadev through Its Chairman Sahebrao Kautik Saindane@Balasaheb Sainda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jalgaon Zilla Adiwasi Malhar Mahadev through Its Chairman Sahebrao Kautik Saindane@Balasaheb Sainda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jalgaon Zilla Adiwasi Malhar Mahadev through Its Chairman Sahebrao Kautik Saindane@Balasaheb Sainda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arss Infrastructure Projects Ltd. Vs Welspun Exports Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Akshata Rajesh Masurkar Vs Rajesh Sadashiv Masurkar

Mr. Vidyadhar Mansing Kurlekar Vs Mrs. Sunita Vidyadhar Kurlekar

Prakash Namdev Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Ranchhoddas Joshi Vs Bharatiya Janata Party (Bjp) and Ors.

Mr. Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs Mrs. Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi