Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v. Central Board of Film Certification

Kerala HC14 Feb 2024WP(C)/2199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the use of his village name in a film title claiming stigma. Court held that as the Censor Board was yet to certify the film, the present petition was unnecessary. However, noting Censor Board's assurance to consider objections, the petition was closed with liberty to approach the court again after certification.

What did the court decide?

petitions closed, liberty to approach the Court again post-certification by Censor Board, all contentions left open.

Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil Vs Central Board of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2199 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJU V.R @ BIJU VAISHYANPARAMBIL, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O RAJAPPAN, VAISHYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRAKASH P.O,
THANKAMONY, IDUKKI, PIN – 685609

¶8

BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, IIS, REGIONAL OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR, CHITHRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, TIRUVALLUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695027

¶11

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ALTHARA JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD - POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014

¶12

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF IDUKKI CIVIL STATION IDUKKI, IDUKKI, PIN – 685609

¶13

4 RATHEESH RAGHUNANDAN, KUNDAJAATHRI, PATHANAAPURAM, NEAR PROGRESSIVE CLUB, CHEKAM, KOLLAM, PIN – 689695

¶14

5 R.B. CHOUDARY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPER GOOD FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.32 NORTH BOAG ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI, PIN – 600017

¶15

6 P. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP, S/O LATE G. PADMANABHA PILLAI, PADMASAROVARAM, KOTTARAKADAVIL ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683101

¶16

*7 JOY THOMAS, S/O THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUPALATHU (H), KAMAKSHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT (ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2024 DATED 14.02.2024)

¶17

WPC 2199/24

¶18

¶19

BY ADVS.
SUVIN R MENON
MOHAMMED SIYAD M F
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
GODWIN JOSEPH
PHILIP T.VARGHESE(K/000576/1991)
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999)
V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006)
K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2199/24

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a resident of a Village by the name “Thankamony” in Kerala; and he objects to the use of that name in a cinematographic film produced by respondents 4 and 5, on the ground that it contains references to a real life incident that happened more than three decades ago, which casts stigma and aspersion on the Village itself, as also its residents. He points out that the incident in question was with reference to a Police action in the area more than three decades ago, in which, there were also unsubstantiated allegations of affront to modesty and even sexual offences against the ladies of the Village; and that, by the respondents alluding to it through their title of the cinematographic movie in such fashion, the stigma would come to revisit its residents; and thus that they are justified in having approached this Court.

¶25

Sri.Jomy K. Jose – learned counsel for the petitioner , vehemently argued that, instead of allowing the scars of the past to settle down and be erased, the cinematographic film in question intends – either intentionally or otherwise – to rekindle those

¶26

¶27

WPC 2199/24

¶28

memories, which, the residents of the locality are trying hard to

¶29

forget and move on with their lives. He submitted that this will lead

¶30

to a mockery of their own existence, as also of future generations, particularly women and children; and hence prayed that the party respondents be injuncted from using the objected title in their cinematographic movie - which is the name of the village in question.

¶31

Sri.Mohammed Siyad – learned counsel for respondents 4

¶32

and 5, submitted that the fear now projected by the petitioner is apocryphal and that his clients had no intention, even remotely, to cause any stigma to the village or its residents. He submitted that

¶33

the petitioner has approached this Court without understanding the contents of the cinematographic move, but solely based on its title, which his clients have chosen with care.

¶34

Interestingly, the learned Central Government Counsel – Sri.Suvin R. Menon, in response, submitted that this Writ Petition is unnecessary because, the Central Board of Film Certification (‘Censor Board’ for short), has not yet certified the movie to be fit for release;

¶35

and that its evaluation is now continuing. He added that the movie

¶36

¶37

WPC 2199/24

¶38

is scheduled to be examined on 17.02.2024 and that all objections of the petitioner, including those voiced in this Writ Petition, will be taken note of before the final certification is granted. He then added that he is making this submission, even when the petitioner has not approached the Censor Board with his objections; but in order to ensure that there is no breach of statutory conditions and requirements.

¶39

5 . I must record that the afore submissions of the learned

¶40

Central Government Counsel allays the apprehensions of the petitioner substantially, if not fully. This is because, as rightly argued by him, this Court will not obtain jurisdiction over an anticipated action, yet to be completed by the Censor Board; and any such will be available to be invoked by the petitioner only after it is done.

¶41

6 . That said, when the Censor Board undertakes before this Court that they will verify the cinematographic movie, to ensure that all statutory requirements are fully complied with, it can only imply that the objections raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition will also seize their mind appropriately.

¶42

In the afore circumstances, I close this Writ Petition, recording

¶43

WPC 2199/24

¶44

¶45

the afore submissions of the learned Central Government Counsel ;

¶46

however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court

¶47

again, if he finds reasons for such after the exercise is completed by

¶48

the Censor Board; for which purpose, all his contentions, as also that

¶49

of the rival parties are left open.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RR

¶52

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

WPC 2199/24

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2199/2024

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE TEASER OF THE MOVIE
RELEASED ON YOUTUBE ON 01.12.2023
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SONG RELEASED ON
YOUTUBE DATED 09.12.2023

¶58

WPC 2199/24

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15943/2021

¶61

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE TRUE` `ISSUED BY` `DATED 05/`	`COPY` `THE` `07/20`	`OF` `POT` `21.`	`THE` `HUKA`	`BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `LLU VILLAGE OFFICE`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`THE TRUE` `ISSUED BY` `DATED 05/`	`COPY` `THE` `07/20`	`OF` `POT` `21.`	`THE` `HUKA`	`BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `LLU VILLAGE OFFICE`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`THE TRUE` `ISSUED BY` `DATED 16/`	`COPY` `THE` `04/20`	`OF` `POT` `21.`	`THE` `HUKA`	`BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `LLU VILLAGE OFFICE`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`THE TRUE` `ISSUED BY` `DATED 19/`	`COPY` `THE` `05/20`	`OF` `POT` `20.`	`THE` `HUKA`	`BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `LLU VILLAGE OFFICE`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`THE TRUE` `ISSUED BY` `DATED 04/`	`COPY` `THE` `06/20`	`OF` `POT` `20.`	`THE` `HUKA`	`BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `LLU VILLAGE OFFICE`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`THE TRUE` `POTHUKALL` `PETITIONE`	`COPY` `U VIL` `R DAT`	`OF` `ALG` `ED`	`THE` `E OF` `17/0`	`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `FICE TO 4TH` `7/2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`THE TRUE` `POTHUKALL` `PETITIONE`	`COPY` `U VIL` `R DAT`	`OF` `LAG` `ED`	`THE` `E OF` `17/0`	`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `FICE TO 5TH` `7/2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`THE TRUE` `KAVALAPPA`	`COPY` `RA LA`	`OF` `NDS`	`THE` `LIDE`	`PHOTOGRAPHS OF` `.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`THE TRUE` `BY DILEEP` `GRAMA PAN`	`COPY` `, MEM` `CHAYA`	`OF` `BER` `TH`	`THE` `, WA` `DATE`	`REPRESENTATION FILED` `RD NO.17, POTHUKALLU` `D 11/02/2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`THE TRUE` `BY PETITI` `DATED 12/`	`COPY` `ONERS` `07/20`	`OF` `BE` `21.`	`THE` `FORE`	`REPRESENTATION FILED` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`

Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v. Central Board of Film Certification

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v. Central Board of Film Certification

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rency George Vs Mohammed Ali

M.K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Agnes Michale Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

M/S.Ekk Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala

Titi R Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M. J. Joy and Company Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)