Writ appeal against Single Judge order dismissing petition seeking deletion of dialogues in film 'Vela Illa Pattadhari'. Bench confirmed dismissal, noting such litigation facilitates re-runs and cited S. Rangarajan to affirm courts cannot act as super censor boards.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07-11-2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
WRIT APPEAL No.1443 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1.S.Dorairaj 2.S.Pandurankan 3.A.Palanivel 4.K.Arunachalam .. Appellants/ Writ petitioner vs 1.The Central Board of Film Certification Represented by its Chairman 91-E, Bharat Bhavan Walkeshwar Road Mumbai 400 006 2.The Central Board of Film Certification (Regional Office-South) Represented by its Chairman Shastri Bhavan 35, Haddows Road Chennai 600 006 3.Danush Producer cum Actor Wunderbar Films 16/5, Rajamannar Salai T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. 4.Velraj Janakiraman Director Colony No.47/2, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. 5.P.Madan M/s.Escape Artists Motion Pictures Distributor (Tamil Film – Velayilla Pattathari) 69-A, Lake Area (Near Padma Seshadri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ School) Chennai 600 017. .. Respondents
Writ appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.23801 of 2014 dated 8.9.2014.
Prayer in Writ Petition
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to delete the contentious dialogue in the Tamil film 'Vela Illa Pattadhari', failing which, to initiate appropriate action under Section 5E of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with Rules 32 and 33 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 in respect of the film 'Vela Illa Pattadhari' granted with certificate dated 14.7.2014 by the second respondent.
The appellants approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that there were certain contentious dialogues in the Tamil film “Velai Illa Pattadhari” in respect of the educational institutions run by Sri Ramakrishna Mission. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 8.9.2014, has dismissed the petition noticing that the Central Board of Film Certification had directed the producer of the film to remove the contentious dialogues; but, in the meantime, the film had already run it's time in the theatre. Not only that, the learned Single Judge has referred to the teaching of Swamy Vivekananda to conclude that he was able to deal with ridicule of people, who thought ill of him. In this behalf, we may only quote para 8 and 9 of the impugned order, which read as under:“8. In this address to the Parliament of Religions on the 11th September, 1893, Swamy Vivekananda proudly proclaimed that he belonged to a country, which taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. If what Swamy Vivekananda said is true and if I, as well as the petitioners herein actually follow his footsteps, we should simply ignore the dialogue in question. It would be useful in these cases at least to follow the path shown by the great Masters, if not the law which is already well settled.
Swamiji spoke in chaste English to the Travelling Ticket Examiner, a co-passenger asked him why he kept quiet without retaliating. Swamiji told him that it was not the first time that he was meeting with ignorant people.”
2.We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the endeavour of the appellants would only give publicity to the film and facilitate a re-run of the film. We hope, that cannot be the objective of the appellants. We are, thus, in complete agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge as contained in para 10, which reads as under:-
“10. It is true that the Central Board of Film Certification appears to have directed the producer of the film to remove the contentious dialogue. But, if the film, instead of running in theatres, had already run away from the theatres, it would not have been possible for the producer to delete the dialogue. By taking exception to certain dialogues, scenes, screenplay and storyline of feature films and approaching the Court for corrective action, many films get a publicity which they do not deserve or cannot afford. By admitting the writ petition and issuing notice, I do not wish to facilitate a re-run of the film. Past experience shows that due to unwarranted sensitivities exhibited by ignorant and intolerant groups of people, many films succeed in the box office. Instead of getting packed off from Theatres, such films run to packed houses by the hype created by intolerance. The law is now well settled by a series of decisions from S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram [1989 SCC (2) 574] that the Court is not to act a a super Censor Board. Ignoring certain things would make them fade away from public memory much faster than objecting to them. Therefore, I do not wish to entertain the writ petition.”
3.We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
nsv
To:
Central Board of Film Certification 91-E, Bharat Bhavan Walkeshwar Road Mumbai 400 006
2.The Chairman
Central Board of Film Certification
(Regional Office-South)
Shastri Bhavan
35, Haddows Road
Chennai 600 006
W.A.No.1443 of 2014
KGK (CO)
kk 18/11
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram [1989 SCC (2) 574]Explained¶15
1.S.Dorairaj 2.S.Pandurankan 3.A.Palanivel 4.K.Arunachalam
The Central Board of Film Certification Represented by its Chairman
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M. Sathyanarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
