Disposed

M/S Shree Rajlaxmi Entertainment v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2016W.P.(C)/8159/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted the report of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal members. The petitioner was directed to carry out specified cuts, insert a disclaimer, mute a dialogue regarding 'item number', and rectify statutory warnings on smoking and alcohol to obtain 'UA' certification.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to make cuts, insert disclaimer, mute dialogue, and rectify statutory warnings for certification.

M/S Shree Rajlaxmi Entertainment Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8159/2016 & CM No. 33741/2016

¶4

M/S SHREE RAJLAXMI ENTERTAINMENT ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. B.S. Nagar and Mr. Yogesh H. Singh, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Sinha, GP, Mr. Amit Mehta and Mr.S.S. Rai, Advocates

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 19.09.2016

¶9

Pursuant to order dated 16.09.2016, it is informed by the parties that the film was viewed by two members of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal appointed as Amicus Curiae being Ms. Bina Gupta and Mr. Shekhar Iyer. It is contended by learned counsel for respondents that Ms Shazia Ilmi and Ms. Poonam Dhillon were not in country and as such could not view the film.

¶10

The two members who had viewed the film have submitted the report which has been produced by the Secretary Mr. K.Ganesh who is also present in court. The report is taken on record.

¶11

The two members, keeping in view the theme and story, opined that film can be certified as ‘UA’ provided cuts at Sl. No. 1, 5, 9 and 16 are carried out and further the film maker inserts a disclaimer as

¶12

W.P.(C) 8159/2016

¶13

Page 1

¶14

mentioned at Sl. No. 17. In addition to the above and keeping in view the guidelines the dialogue at 1:18 where the reference is made to a girl as "item number" is muted. The members have noticed that statutory warnings relating to smoking and consumption of alcohol are not as per notification and are to be corrected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner accepts the opinion rendered by the two members and would carry out the necessary modification/deletion/cuts.

¶16

The report submitted by the two members is accepted. The petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary modifications/deletions/cuts in accordance with the opinion expressed by the two members and also rectify the disclaimer and the Statutory warnings relating to smoking and consumption of alcohol be rectified. The modified film be submitted to Film Certification Board along with necessary declaration for certification in accordance with Rule 26 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in terms of above.

¶18

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶19

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶20

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 ‘ rs’

¶21

W.P.(C) 8159/2016

¶22

Page 2

M/S Shree Rajlaxmi Entertainment v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shree Rajlaxmi Entertainment v. Union of India & 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

Dtc Employees Superannuation Pension Trust Vs Income Tax Commissioner (Exemption)

Gnct of Delhi and Anr. Vs Anoop Raj

Sharwan Kumar Aggarwal Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Taxation Bar Association (Regd.) Vs Chief Secretary, Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Indian Institute of Architects Vs National Building Construction Corporation and Anr.

Manohar Lal & Ors. Vs the Chairman Ndmc & Ors.

Gopal Sharma @ Sripal Vs N.D.M.C. and Ors.

Akhil Kumar Gupta Vs Land Acquisition Collector and Ors.

Ashok Pal Singh Vs Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Mohammad Sulaiman (Pakistani National) & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs Taekwondo Federation of India & Ors.

Janta College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Coucil of India

Amarjit Singh Chahal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Phuntsok Wangyal Vs Ministry of External Affairs & Ors.