Cinematograph Act, 1952

Supreme Court quashes summons against public servant in Uphaar tragedy case for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (20 April 2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, B.V. Nagarathna, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 14, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 319, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 337, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Affecting Public Safety

Supreme Court quashes summons against public servant in Uphaar tragedy case for lack of sanction Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, and Aravind Kumar, JJ. Can a public servant be prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity without prior government sanction? The Supreme […]

Supreme Court quashes summons against public servant in Uphaar tragedy case for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (20 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023)

/ Aravind Kumar, B.V. Nagarathna, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 14, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 337, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 338, Judges, K.M. Joseph

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a public servant can be prosecuted without prior government sanction for actions taken in their official capacity. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Expression: Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

/ Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 13, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 5B, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(a), Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court Protects Free Speech in Film Exhibition: Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd vs. West Bengal (2019) **LEGAL ISSUE:** Whether a State government can obstruct the public exhibition of a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). **CASE TYPE:** Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech and Expression **Case Name:** Indibily Creative

Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Expression: Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd vs. State of West Bengal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against “Padmavati” Release: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. (28 November 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Cinematograph Act, 1952 with Section 7, Constitutional Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 with Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 295A, Judges

Can a court interfere with a film’s release before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) makes a decision? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the film “Padmavati.” The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of the CBFC’s role and the freedom of artistic expression.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Against “Padmavati” Release: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. (28 November 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top