Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943 PETITIONERS: 1 SANDEEP MEHTA S/O.ASHOK KUMAR MEHTA, RESIDING AT FLAT NUMBER 1, FIRST FLOOR, KEGEYES KAVERI APPARTMENT, CRESCENT STREET, ARCHBISHOP MATHIAS AVENUE, RA PURAM, CHENNAI- 600028, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.COLLEEN PETRIZ.
2 SANY FRANCIS, S/O.K.C.FRANCIS, RESIDING AT KATTRUKUDIYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.50, RMV ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682026. 3 K.V.JOSE, S/O.K.P.VARKEY, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, PERINGAZHA, PERUMBALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, ROOM NO.552, A WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, FILMS DIVISION COMPLEX, PHASE-1 BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DR.G.DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI-400026. 3 THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION , 1ST FLOOR, CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, TIRUVALLUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027. 4 THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, FILMS DIVISION COMPLEX, PHASE-I BUILDING, 9TH FLOOR, DR.G.DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI-400026. 5 MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, C/O.M/S.ABAAM MOVIES, SOUTH BRIDGE AVENUE, B, KOCHI, 2ND CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682036. ADV.SRI.JAISANKER.V.NAIR,CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021 The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that in the light of the judgment in KS Puttuswamy (Supra), the issuance of Ext.P3 certification for the film Maradu 357 based on a live story without hearing the petitioners is a violation of their fundamental rights;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other directing the 1st respondent to revoke Ext.P3 certificate for the film Maradu 357 issued to the 5th respondent by the 3rd respondent;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other directing the respondents No.1 & 4 to re- examine the film Maradu 357 in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners vide Ext.P7 representation;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other directing the 3rd respondent to recall Ext.P3 certificate for the film Maradu 357 issued to the 5th respondent;
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other directing the respondent No.1-3 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7, within a time period stipulated by this Honourable Court;
(vi) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3
censor certificate issued in favour of the 5 th respondent. It is stated that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P7 representation before the respondents 1 to 3 invoking the provisions contained in Section 5E and 6 of the Cinematograph Act and Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. It is pointed out that under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, the Central Government is vested with revisional powers either on its on motion or otherwise, at any stage in respect of certification of film by the Board. Under Section 5E also, the Central Government is vested with powers either to suspend or revoke a certificate granted by the Board. According to the petitioners, Ext.P3 certificate is issued without hearing the petitioners and there is no provision for hearing anybody else at the time of issuance of the certificate, other than the applicant.
3. I heard Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Jayasankar V.Nair, the learned CGC and Sri.C.C.Thomas, the learned Senior counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 5th respondent.
4. Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 reads as follows; “32. Re-examination of certified films.-
(1) Where in respect of a film which has been certified for public exhibition, any complaint is received by the Board, the same shall be forwarded to the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, if it considers
it necessary so to do, direct the Chairman to re- examine any film(in respect of which a complaint has been received by it directly or through the Board) in such manner and with such assistance as may be specified in the direction.
(3) The Chairman may, for the purpose of re-
examination aforesaid, require by written notice the person who made the application for certification of the film or the person to whom the rights of ownership or distribution in the film have passed, to arrange at his expense to deliver a print of the certified film to any specified Regional Officer within such time as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of re- examination.
(4) The place, date and time of such re- examination shall be determined by the Chairman.
(5) The Chairman shall forward his opinion
together with the print of the film in relation to which a certificate was issued earlier to the Central Government who may after such enquiry as it deems fit, pass such orders thereon in exercise of the revisional powers under section 6.
(6) The provisions of this rule shall apply only in cases where the revisional powers are exercisable by the Central Government under section 6.”
5. As Ext.P7 can be treated as a petition
filed either under Section 5E or Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act read with Rule 32 of the Cinematograph Rules, 1983, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent considers Ext.P7 petition in accordance with law.
6. Therefore there shall be a direction to
1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules and to take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and to communicate the same to the parties.
7. The learned Senior counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent undertakes that till orders are passed on Ext.P7, the film will not be released in any format. This is recorded. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN B.A.NO.8399/2019 DATED 29.06.2020. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN B.A.NO.8380/2019 DATED 25.11.2019. EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN B.A.NO.8360/2019 DATED 11.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF THE POSTERS OF THE FILM MARADU 357 WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON THE OFFICIAL FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE FILM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CENSOR CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR MARADU 357 DATED 25.01.2021 IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT II, ERNAKULAM DATED 01.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2021 IN O.S.NO.186/2021. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 03.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.6 OF 2021 IN O.S.NO.186/2021. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY DATED 19.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AFTER VIEWING THE FILM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.1-3 DATED 20.03.2021. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 27.09.2019 IN MA.NO.1808-1809 OF 2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE