Allowed

R. Malleshwari, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Home

Telangana HC24 Sept 2012WP/25856/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed writ appeals and vacated interim orders that restrained the release of the film 'Sorry Teacher'. The court held that newspaper reports cannot equate to evidence and affirmed the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant the film a U/A certificate upon examining it in its entirety.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the interim orders dated 3.9.2012 restraining the release of the film 'Sorry Teacher'; disposed of pending writ petitions.

R. Malleshwari, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos.1128 & 1129 of 2012 And Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 & 26622 of 2012

¶5

DATED:24.9.2012

¶6

Between: M/s. Suryalok Film Factory, Mumbai.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

R. Malleshwari and others.

¶10

…. Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶13

Writ Appeal Nos.1128 & 1129 of 2012 And Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 & 26622 of 2012

¶14

Common Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶15

Since the issue involved in the writ appeals and the writ petitions being the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶16

The writ appeals are filed by the appellant/respondent No.4 aggrieved by the interim orders dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.M.P. Nos. 32956 of 2012 and 33929 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012 respectively, whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge restrained respondent No.4/the appellant herein and official respondents from releasing the film titled as “Sorry Teacher” pursuant to the Certification made in UA/DIL/2/13/2012/HYD, dated 16.7.2012, pending further orders.

¶17

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of the writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012 also along with the writ appeals.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant firstly contends that the film is not yet released and all the allegations which are made by the respondents-writ petitioners are only speculative in nature, based on inference drawn in print and electronic media, which cannot form the basis for finding against the appellant at this stage. Learned counsel submits that the publicity material on the basis of which inferences are drawn by the writ petitioners are not part of the film and the posters/publicity material has been cleared by an

¶19

independent body, namely, Publicity Screening Committee of Films, IMPPA House, Mumbai-400050, which is regulated by its own Regulations, as framed by the Government of India. He further submits that the film has been granted Certificate for restricted viewing under U/A category. It is also stated that the appellant/4^th respondent had applied for certification in Mumbai Region whereupon the Chief Executive Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai vide his letter No.15/4/2012-Mum, dated 21.6.2012 has permitted the producers to apply at Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad as Mumbai Region do not have Telugu speaking panel members. The members of the Revising Committee, whose names are mentioned in the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification says that the body comprises of eminent male and female members, who have certified the film after viewing it and the Presiding Officer has given detailed reasons for granting U/A Certificate to the film in question. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Central Board of Film Certification after considering the recommendations of the Members of the Revising Committee has granted Certification to the film ‘Sorry Teacher’ for theatrical release and he also drew our attention to the reasons recorded by the said Revising Committee for granting U.A. Certificate to the film in question, wherein the Revising Committee after viewing the film in question, came to the conclusion that “the mannerisms have also changed and the teachers who are raising hue and cry are unfit to work as teachers since they are not realizing their duty and not appreciating the essence of the movie and the Committee unanimously expressed its opinion that the cinema being a representation of the changing social mores in the society, the movie ‘Sorry Teacher’ was a representation of the said change”. He, therefore, submitted that the decision of the Revising Committee as approved by the Central Board of Film Certification needs no interference. Therefore, the interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge restraining the release of the film in question be vacated.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Board of Film Certification, respondents 3 and 4 herein, also contended that the Revised

¶21

Committee was right in granting Certification to the film in question and he relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas vs. The Union of India^[1] , Raj Kapoor and Others vs. State and Others^[2] , Bobby Art International and Others vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon and Others^[3] , Director General of Doordarshan and Others vs. Anand Patwardhan and anothe r^[4] and the decisions of this Court in Lakshmi Ganesh Films, Hyderabad and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others^[5] and Vadlapatla Naga Vara Prasad vs. Chair Person, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai and others^[6] , in support of the decision of the Revising Committee.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the recommendations of the Revising Committee and on a consideration of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, we are of the view that the newspaper reports cannot be equated to documentary evidence against a party and after considering Sections 5-A and 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), which deal with the certification for exhibition of a film and the principles for guidance in certifying films and the challenge which has been thrown by the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 in respect of exhibition of the film in question, we do not find that there is any reason to stop the film in question. Further, the objectives of film certification as has been specifically stated in the notification dated 6.12.2991 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi will ensure that (a) the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society; (b) artistic expression and creative freedom are not duly curbed; (c) certification is responsive to social change; (d) the medium of film provides clean and healthy environment; and (e) as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard and according to us the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification certifying that the viewing of the film by the children below the age of 12 years should be considered by the parents/guardian of the child, satisfies the requirements of Section 5-B of the Act.

¶23

It is evident that since the film is not yet released, the contentions of the writ petitioners are based upon hear say evidence and are purely speculative, based on inferences drawn in the print and electronic media. Further the Revising Committee, which has examined the film has issued the Certificate for restricted viewing in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government of India, by judging the film in its entirety for its over all impact. The guidelines prescribed have been adhered to as is evident from the reasons given in support of the Certification. Thus, the Certification made by a High powered Board of Film Certification, which is a specialised composition gives an un-rebuttable presumption in favour of the said statutory Certificate, which cannot be rebutted merely by allegations of the writ petitioners. Within the broad parameters of the guidelines, the film is required to be judged based upon a criteria as to whether an average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and the said test as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision fourth cited supra has been followed.

¶24

Hence, we are of the opinion that the Central Board of Film Certification after thoroughly considering the recommendations of the Revising Committee and after considering all the aspects referred to above, has granted certification to the film in question. We, therefore, do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the said order of the Revising Committee.

¶25

Accordingly, we allow the writ appeals and vacate the interim orders dated 3.9.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.M.P. Nos. 32956 of 2012 and 33929 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012. In view of the orders passed in the writ appeals allowing the said appeals, no further orders are necessary in the writ petitions.

¶26

Writ Petition Nos. 25856 of 2012 and 26622 of 2012 are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶27

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶28

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶29

24-9-2012

¶30

L.R. Copy to be marked.

¶31

pnb