Petitioner challenged the release of film KGF-2 featuring a convicted terrorist against public interest. Court held no legal provision imposes such disqualification and no illegality was shown, dismissing the petition.
Prayer to cancel the film licence was dismissed as there is no provision of law warranting such action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9201 OF 2020 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
G.SHIVASHANKAR S/O S.D.GUNASHEKAR AGED 38 YEARS OCCUPATION: ENGINEER AND SOCIAL WORKER, R/AT NO.62 OPP. NAVODAYA SCHOOL SIDDHARUDH NAGAR, ADAR KUNCHI HUBBALI-580 024.
… PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RODDA VEERSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
11TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226B AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECT OR ORDER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CANCEL THE LICENCE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING KGF-2 KANNADA FILM VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 30.07.2020, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has allowed the third respondent to act in a film made by the second respondent. It is stated that the third respondent has been convicted for the offences concerning Mumbai bomb blasts.
3
His submission is that the people of Karnataka are opposing this move of permitting the third respondent to act in the film.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
vgh*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cinema certification authority is statutorily required to disqualify a convicted terrorist from acting in a film
Whether any provision of law prevents the respondents from allowing a convicted person to act in a motion picture
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Shivashankar
The State of Karnataka
Hombale Films LLP
Abhay S. Oka
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
