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. The bench comprised Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
Case Background
The petitioner, Manohar Lal Sharma, filed a PIL seeking to prevent the release of the film “Padmavati” internationally without CBFC certification. Additionally, the petitioner requested that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) register a First Information Report (FIR) against the filmmakers for offenses under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, along with Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 499, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The petitioner alleged that the film hurt religious sentiments and defamed certain communities.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | Filing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2017 by Manohar Lal Sharma. |
| 20.11.2017 | Order passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 186/2017, stating that interference would be pre-judging the matter, as the film had not received certification from the CBFC. |
| 28 November 2017 | Supreme Court dismisses Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2017. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that a similar matter was previously filed by the same petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 186/2017. In that case, the Court struck off a substantial portion of the pleadings. Despite this, the petitioner reiterated the same contentions in the current petition. The Court expressed shock at this approach and struck off the narrations made in pages B to E of the petition. The Court also directed that such pleadings should not be included or mentioned anywhere in the future.
Legal Framework
The petitioner invoked several legal provisions, including:
- Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952: This section deals with penalties for contravening the provisions of the Act.
- Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 499, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections pertain to offenses related to promoting enmity between different groups, defiling places of worship, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, defamation, and punishment for defamation, respectively.
- Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: This section prohibits the publication or advertisement containing indecent representation of women.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the CBFC is the statutory authority responsible for certifying films. The Court emphasized that any interference before the CBFC’s decision would be tantamount to pre-judging the matter.
Arguments
The petitioner, Manohar Lal Sharma, argued that the film “Padmavati” should not be exhibited in other countries without the CBFC certification. He further sought an FIR against the filmmakers for various offenses, alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and defamed certain communities.
The respondents, represented by Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Shyam Divan, contended that the petitioner’s allegations were baseless and scurrilous. They emphasized that the film was still under consideration by the CBFC. Mr. Salve stated that the filmmakers had no intention to exhibit the film internationally before the CBFC’s decision.
The Additional Solicitors General, Mr. Maninder Singh and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, assisted the Court and agreed that no one holding public office should comment on the certification process while it is pending before the CBFC.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ The film should not be exhibited internationally without CBFC certification. | ✓ The petitioner’s allegations are baseless and scurrilous. |
| ✓ An FIR should be registered against the filmmakers for various offenses. | ✓ The film is still under consideration by the CBFC. |
| ✓ The film hurts religious sentiments and defames certain communities. | ✓ There is no intention to exhibit the film internationally before the CBFC’s decision. |
The innovativeness of the petitioner’s argument lies in seeking to prevent the international release of the film even before the CBFC could make a decision.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following:
- Whether the Court should interfere with the film’s release before the CBFC makes a decision.
- Whether an FIR should be registered against the filmmakers based on the petitioner’s allegations.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Court should interfere with the film’s release before the CBFC makes a decision. | The Court held that any interference would be pre-judging the matter and dismissed the prayer. |
| Whether an FIR should be registered against the filmmakers based on the petitioner’s allegations. | The Court found no basis for directing the registration of an FIR and stated that the prayer was misconceived. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court cited the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (2015) 6 SCC 1 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to explain the concept of artistic license, stating it should be respected but judged objectively. |
| Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police and another [ (1970) 1 SCC 149 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of individual freedom in a civilized society. |
| State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav [ (1976) 4 SCC 213 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that while rights are important, there are reasonable restrictions on the exercise of freedoms. |
| Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr [W.P. (C) No. 1119 of 2017] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that freedom of speech and expression should not be ordinarily interfered with and that the Court should restrain itself from interfering once the CBFC has granted a certificate. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952: The Court noted that the petitioner sought action under this section, but found no basis to direct registration of an FIR.
- Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 499, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The Court observed that the police have no role in cases related to defamation (Sections 499 and 500) and that there was no basis to allege other offenses.
- Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: The Court did not find any basis to direct registration of an FIR under this provision.
Judgment
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | The film should not be exhibited internationally without CBFC certification. | The Court held that the prayer had no foundation and was bound to fail. |
| Petitioner | An FIR should be registered against the filmmakers for various offenses. | The Court found the prayer to be misconceived and without basis. |
| Respondents | The film is still under consideration by the CBFC. | The Court agreed that any interference before the CBFC’s decision would be pre-judging the matter. |
The Court’s view on the authorities are as follows:
- Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2015) 6 SCC 1]*: The Court used this case to support the concept of artistic license, emphasizing that while it is important, it should be judged objectively on a case-by-case basis.
- Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1970) 1 SCC 149]*: The Court cited this case to underscore the paramount importance of individual freedom in a civilized society.
- State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh Yadav [(1976) 4 SCC 213]*: This case was used to highlight that while rights are essential, they are subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr [W.P. (C) No. 1119 of 2017]*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that freedom of speech and expression should not be interfered with, especially when the CBFC has already granted a certificate.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory role of the CBFC and the importance of artistic freedom. The Court emphasized that it should not pre-judge matters that are pending before a statutory authority. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s pleadings were scurrilous and vexatious, indicating an abuse of the legal process.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of CBFC’s statutory role | 40% |
| Protection of artistic freedom | 30% |
| Abuse of legal process by petitioner | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. The legal aspects, such as the role of the CBFC and the freedom of expression, were given more weight. The factual aspects, such as the petitioner’s conduct and the nature of the pleadings, also influenced the decision.
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court emphasized that it could not interfere with the CBFC’s statutory role. It also rejected the petitioner’s request for an FIR, finding no basis for the allegations. The Court’s reasoning was clear: the CBFC must be allowed to perform its duties without external pressure or interference.
The Court stated that the prayers made in the petition had no foundation and were bound to fail. The Court also emphasized that writ petitions should not be filed to abuse others and that pleadings should not be scurrilous, vexatious, or untenable in law. The Court quoted from the judgment, “The pleadings, as we have stated earlier, are absolutely scurrilous, vexatious and untenable in law, and we, accordingly, strike them off the record.”
The Court also noted that, “When the matter is pending for grant of certification, if responsible people in power or public offices comment on the issue of certification pending consideration before the statutory authority, that is a violation of the rule of law.” The Court further added, “A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer.”
The Court did not find any majority or minority opinions. The decision was unanimous.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a statutory authority should be allowed to perform its duties without external interference. The Court also emphasized the importance of artistic freedom and the need to protect it.
The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving film certification and public interest litigation. It reinforces the importance of the CBFC’s role and the need to avoid pre-judging matters that are pending before statutory authorities.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles related to statutory authorities and freedom of expression.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will not interfere with the CBFC’s decision-making process.
- Public interest litigations should not be used to abuse others or to make scurrilous allegations.
- Freedom of artistic expression is a fundamental right that should be protected.
- Statutory authorities should be allowed to perform their duties without external pressure or interference.
Directions
The Court directed that the narrations made in pages B to E of the petition were struck off and were not to be included or mentioned anywhere in the future.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the statutory functions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that public interest litigations should not be used to abuse others or to make scurrilous allegations. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL against the film “Padmavati,” emphasizing the importance of the CBFC’s statutory role and the freedom of artistic expression. The Court cautioned against pre-judging matters pending before statutory authorities and the abuse of public interest litigation.