Dismissed

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and Anr. v. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Office Firm Div. and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2018PIL/178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the certification of the film Kedarnath by the CBFC, alleging hurt sentiments to Hindus. The Court noted the delay in filing the petition, reviewed CBFC's guidelines and reliance on Supreme Court precedents, and found no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and claims for directing reassessment or stop release of the movie were dismissed.

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and Anr. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION STAMP NO. 34501 OF 2018

¶6

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Central Board of Film Certification and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Prabhakar Tripathi a/w Mr.R.C.Mishra and Mr. Padmakar Tripathi I/b Tripathi & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr.Advait M.Sethna a/w Ms.Ruju R.Thakkar, for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Dharam Junani and Mr.Harsh Gokhale, I/b DSK Legal, for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : 06^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

¶13

226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for the following reliefs.

¶14

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature

¶15

1/9

¶16

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶17

of Mandamus directing:

¶18

i) the Respondents to reassess the story and act of actors and directors and producers of the movie KEDARNATH in the interest of large numbers of public.

¶19

(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue stop release notice to the producers and directors of the said Movie for reassess the fact and story as well as effect on showing the acts in the said movie.

¶20

(iii) Any other just, equitable and consequential relief/order may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioners as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners

¶22

submits that the poster of the film titled 'Kedarnath' as well as the trailer of the film released on different channels of T.V. and You Tube hurts the feelings of large sections of people professing Hindu Religion. The Kedarnath temple being one of the important holy places for Hindus popularly known as 'Char Dham', large number of devotees visit Kedarnath to seek

¶23

2/9

¶24

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶25

blessings of Lord Shiva. Thus a large section of devotees professing Hindu religion and visiting Kedarnath dham got hurt by the poster and trailer of this film. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners questions the wisdom of Central Board of Film Certification (for short 'CBFC') which is constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short 'Act') certifying the film and allowing the film to be released under its certification. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed on record Short Notes of Argument.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 & 2 has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that under the provisions of Section 5B of the Act, principles for guidance in certifying films are prescribed. Section 5B reads thus :

¶27

“5B. Principles for guidance in certifying films.—

¶28

(1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of

¶29

3/9

¶30

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶31

the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.

¶32

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in subsection (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.]”

¶33

The Central Government has also framed guidelines

¶34

for certification of films for public exhibition in exercise of powers conferred by Subsection (2) of Section 5B. Clause 1 of the guidelines deals with the objectives of film certification which reads thus :

¶35

“1. The objectives of the film certification will be to ensure that –

¶36

a) the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society ;

¶37

b) artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed ;

¶38

c) certification is responsive to social change ;

¶39

d) the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainments ; and

¶40

4/9

¶41

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶42

e) as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard.”

¶43

Learned Counsel submits that the CBFC has seen the

¶44

film minutely and in consonance with the provisions of the Act and guidelines, after directing certain cuts, certification has been given. It is pointed out that certain modifications were recommended to the filmmakers which they willingly carried out. It is further submitted that the CBFC did not find anything in the film that might cause any harm or hurt communal harmony of the people. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted that the contents of film can in no way be considered as disrespectful to any religion or community. He submits that CBFC on proper and careful examination of the film did not find anything of the nature of so called 'love jihad' as alleged in the Petition. In addition to the disclaimer in the beginning that they do not intend to hurt sentiments of any religion or community, further modifications have been suggested taking into consideration the sentiments of the people at large. It has been further mentioned in the

¶45

5/9

¶46

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶47

affidavit that the film as a whole sends out a message of humanity and harmony. There is no defamation of any religion or deity as alleged. According to the CBFC, the Petition is based only on apprehension the Petitioners perceive which fails to warrant any drastic action by CBFC in respect of the film over & above the excisions/modifications suggested by CBFC. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Gautam vs. Union of India – AIR 2015 Del. 92 .

¶48

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶49

Respondent No.3 submits that the film is based on a love story and it is shot in the area of Kedarnath temple. The film is not meant to hurt the feelings of a particular community. According to him, CBFC which is an expert body has carefully seen the film and directed certain cuts and gave certification. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Jha Productions & another vs. Union of

¶50

India and ors. (2011) 8 SCC 372.

¶51

6/9

¶52

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶53

Learned Senior Counsel submits that internationally

¶54

the film is already released. Learned Senior Counsel has placed on record an affidavitinreply. Paragraph 11 of the said affidavitinreply reads thus :

¶55

“I say that the film portrays a fictional love story set in the hills of Uttarakand between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl around the Kedarnath temple area. The Kedarnath temple and the 2013 mountain tsunami in that area only form a backdrop for the fictional love story. The film does not intend to arouse illwill between the Hindu and Muslim communities or encourage Love Jehad or draw any mileage by titling the film after the Kedarnath temple. The film does not disrespect the Kedarnath temple, nor does it portray the temple or any of the communities in a derogatory/offending/disrespectful manner. The film also has a clear and unambiguous disclaimer, which states that “The film is meant for entertainment purpose only and we do not intend to hurt the sentiments of any individual, community sect or religion. All characters are fictional and any resemblance to anyone dead or alive is purely coincidental .” It is submitted that such a disclaimer should be sufficient to assuage the purported concerns of the Petitioners.”

¶56

7/9

¶57

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶58

We have perused the materials placed on record.

¶59

We have also perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Jha Productions (supra) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Ajay Gautam ( supra ). Respondent No.1 – CBFC has certified the film to be released. It is informed that the film is based on a lovestory. The film was shot in Kedarnath temple area. The trailers are published on 15/11/2018 and certificate is granted on 03/12/2018. 2000 screens are blocked for release of the film.

¶60

We find substance in the contention of the

¶61

Respondent No.3 as regards delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court. The trailers were released on 12/11/2015, the Petitioners however filed this PIL only on 04/12/2018 viz. just two days prior to the release of film in Middle East and three days prior to its release in 2000 screens across India.

¶62

From the affidavit filed by CBFC it appears that the applicable procedure under the Act and the Rules framed

¶63

8/9

¶64

oilst 34501.18.doc

¶65

thereunder is followed. After viewing the film minutely, CBFC vide its letter dated 01/12/2018 suggested eight cuts/ modifications which it thought was necessary in view of the provisions of the Act. Respondent No.3 accepted all the cuts/ modifications suggested. The CBFC thereafter reexamined and certified the film on 03/12/2018.

¶66

In respect of the poster of the film, a copy of which is placed on record, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that under the Act only guidelines for certification of films for public exhibition are envisaged. However, insofar as regulating control over the film's posters are concerned, such posters are published in accordance with the instructions of industrial bodies under the certification of the Central Government.

¶67

Taking an overall view of the matter and upon considering the aforesaid submissions, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.

¶68

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶69

9/9

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and Anr. v. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Office Firm Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chhabinath Mishra and Anr. v. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Office Firm Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Babasaheb Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Janardhan Sukase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bapu Ukha Mali and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Mahadev Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dattatray Nana Mali vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Kisan Patilba Kavad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Mohanrao Aware Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Akbar Ismail Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the Dy. Collector (Acquisition No. 2) Nashik and Ors.

Shri Vishnu D Barve Vs the State Opf Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Damodharan Chahatu Kutti Nayar Vs the National Highway Authority of India through Its Project Director and Ors.

Shri. Arun Bhimrao Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Arun Bhimrao Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.