Much hyped movie “Aarakshan” has last been released throughout the country including Andhra Pradesh, UP and Punjab, states which had earlier imposed a ban on the movie in the light of maintaining law and order situation in the state. But, eventually they had to put the ban off. Andhra Pradesh and Punjab put the ban off on their own, while the ban was removed from the state UP following Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/S Prakash Jha Productions & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. The counsel for the petitioner was well known lawyer Mr. Harish Salve who handsomely convinced the court to remove the ban on the basis of its unconstitutionality. One of the reliefs which was sought by the petitioner was to strike down the provision mentioned therein under Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. Another relief which was sought was to remove the ban from these three states as mentioned above. Court didn’t take into account the ban imposed in the state of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh because they had removed the ban at a later stage, which made petition against them infructuous.
Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 states that -
“The State Government, in respect of the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh or any part thereof,and the District Magistrate in respect of the district within his jurisdiction may, if it or he, as thecase may be, is of opinion that any film which is being publicly exhibited, is likely to cause a breach of the peace, by order, suspend the exhibition of the films and thereupon the films shall not during such suspension be exhibited in the State, part or the district concerned, notwithstandingthe certificate granted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.”
From the wordings of the above act, it would not be difficult to conclude that a ban under this act can only be imposed once movie is exhibited publicly. In the instant case, no exhibition had taken place at the time when the ban was imposed over it which makes the act of the government ultra vires.
“A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision in Section 6 of the Act would make it crystal-clear that the power vested therein could be exercised by the State under the said provision when a filmwhich is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of peace. Only in such circumstance and event, an order could be passed suspending the exhibition of the film.”
“The expression 'being publicly exhibited' and the word 'suspension' are relevant for our purpose and, therefore, we are giving emphasis on the aforesaid expression and the word. When it is said that a film is being publicly exhibited, it definitely pre- supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for public and in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of peace then in thatevent such a power could be exercised by the State Government. Such an extra-ordinary power cannot be exercised with regard to a film which is yet to be exhibited openly and publicly in aparticular State. This view that we have taken is also fortified from the use of the word 'suspension' in the said section. The word `suspension' envisages something functional or something which is being shown or is running. Suspension is always a temporary phase, which gets obliterated as and when the previous position is restored.”
Further, it had been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned ban violated Fundamental Right mentioned therein under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. Counsel on behalf of the state government contended that ban, if removed, would cause adverse effect on the law and order situation in the state. The movie was passed by the Central Board of Film Certification, and the same was viewed by an expert committee which included members of SC,ST and OBC communities and they had willingly certified the movie subject to the deletion of word “dalit” from the 1st part of the movie, and the movie was certified under the head “social”. Further court held that this committee has no power to impose pre-censorship once the movie had been passed by the board with an examining committee of the board. Despite this, the disputed word was removed by the producer voluntarily and thereafter it was released throughout the country. Counsel for the state argued that since the movie had been viewed by the expert committee, it can said to have been exhibited. But, court rejected this very argument on the ground that movie has to be publicly exhibited and this was not carried out in the present case. Further, the very fact that the movie had been released in all other state except UP and had been running smoothly refuted the arguments made by the counsel of the state government. It had been stated by the counsel that reservation is very sensitive issue and it would create adverse effect in the state. But, court was of the view that since the movie had been running smoothly in other areas of the country which are equally sensitive as that of UP, so UP cannot be made an exception. Further, court opined that reservation is also a social issue and discussion over it is quite an important thing to be done and state cannot impede this by means of an act. Moreover, once a movie has received certification from the CBFC board, it is the duty on the part of the state to impart its duty without hindering the release of the movie. A few case laws were discussed by the court during the course of hearing. First was S. Rangaranjan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574,where it had been held by this court that –
“36. The democracy is a government by the people via open discussion. The democratic form ofgovernment itself demands its citizens an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the community. The public discussion with people's participation is a basic feature and a rational process of democracy which distinguishes it from all other forms of government. The democracy can neither work nor prosper unless people go out to share their views. The truth is that publicdiscussion on issues relating to administration has positive value. What Walter Lippman said in another context is relevant here: When men act on the principle of intelligence, they go out to find the facts.... When they ignore it, they go inside themselves and find out what is there. Theyelaborate their prejudice instead of increasing their knowledge”
Secondly, court discussed the case of Union of India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa reported in (2001) 1 SCC 582, where it has been held by the court that –
“Once an expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film,it is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation and that it is for the StateGovernment concerned to see that the law and order situation is maintained and that in any democratic society there are bound to be divergent views.”
Click here for the Supreme Court Judgment
No comments :
Post a Comment