Telangana High Court
P. Ram Gopal Varma vs Telugu Desam Party on 5 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.56 and 59 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) These intra court appeals emanate from an order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34681 of 2023, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, namely Telugu Desam Party (hereinafter referred to as 'TDP') has been allowed. W.A.No.56 of 2024 has been filed by the Producer of the film, whereas W.A.No.59 of 2024 has been filed by the Director of the film. With regard to certification of Telugu feature film 'Vyuham' for public viewing is the issue involved in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. Appellant No.1 in W.A.No.56 of 2024 is the producer (hereinafter referred to as 'the producer') of a feature film titled 'Vyuham'. The producer on 19.10.2023 submitted an 2 application for censor certification of feature film 'Vyuham' before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The examining committee of the CBFC viewed the film on 31.10.2023 and refused to certify the film as it is found that the film is not suitable for public exhibition.
3. Thereafter, on 01.11.2023, the Chairperson of CBFC referred the film for evaluation by the Revising Committee of the CBFC. The CBFC informed the producer on 03.11.2023 that Revising Committee shall not review the film as Model Code of Conduct is in force in the State of Telangana and certification of the film can be considered only after conclusion of the elections. The producer submitted a representation on 03.11.2023 itself to forthwith review the film. One Nara Lokesh submitted a complaint on 04.11.2023 to the CBFC not to issue the certificate for public exhibition of the feature film.
4. The feature film was scheduled to be released on 10.11.2023. On 23.11.2023, the producer filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.32374 of 2023 in which inaction on the part of CBFC in not certifying the film for public exhibition was assailed. Learned Single Judge of this Court 3 by an order dated 28.11.2023 while disposing of the writ petition directed the Regional Office, CBFC to consider the application for grant of censor certificate within ten days in accordance with law.
5. Thereafter Mr. Nara Lokesh issued a notice calling upon CBFC not to issue censor certificate for public exhibition of the feature film. On 13.12.2023, 'U' certificate was granted to the feature film and the producer was directed to display a disclaimer at the beginning of the feature film that the feature film is based on true events with cinematographic liberties. Thereupon, the revised date of release of feature film was announced on 29.12.2023.
6. Thereupon, the TDP filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.34681 of 2023 in which a prayer was made to quash the certificate issued by CBFC in favour of the producer on the ground that the same is illegal and in violation of Section 5B(1) and (2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), violative of guideline No.2(xviii) of the Guidelines contained in S.O.836E, dated 06.12.1991 as well as Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Single Judge 4 passed an interim order on 28.12.2023, by which operation of the certificate granted by CBFC was suspended for a period of three weeks.
7. The writ petition was thereafter heard. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 22.01.2024 inter alia held that TDP has locus to file the writ petition as it is a person aggrieved as per Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC and Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was further held that the record does not show that the Revising Committee while issuing certificate has recorded any reasons. The learned Single Judge quashed the certificate granted in favour of the producer and further directed the Regional Office, CBFC and the Revising Committee to reconsider the matter and communicate the same. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals arise for consideration.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that a political party which is recognised under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot maintain a writ petition, muchless a writ petition for alleged defamation. It is submitted that reliance placed by 5 the learned Single Judge on the definition of a 'person' under Section 499 IPC is misplaced. It is contended that TDP does not fall within the definition of 'association of persons' under Section 499 IPC and therefore, cannot maintain the writ petition. It is pointed out that, from the averments made in the writ petition, it is not clear whether Mr. Nara Lokesh has filed the writ petition in the capacity of General Secretary or as son of Mr. Nara Chandrababu Naidu. The learned Single Judge, therefore, ought to have appreciated that the writ petition at the instance of the TDP was not maintainable.
9. It is contended that Form VIII appended to Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Certification Rules") does not require the Revising Committee to record reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a movie. It is argued that the Revising Committee is required to record reasons only when UA/A/S certificate is granted by the CBFC. It is further argued that columns III and IV in Form VIII have to be read together, which clearly indicate that reasons must be ascribed only for excisions and not while granting a certificate. It is contended that once CBFC has certified the 6 release of the film, the same cannot be restrained from exhibition and a prior restraint on the release of the film is not permissible. It is contended that the plea of defamation must be pleaded and proved. It is urged that a person in public life is subject to scrutiny and therefore, cannot claim immunity from defamation. It is further urged that the producer has the protection guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India which permits him to allude to incidents which have taken place and present his version of the incidents.
10. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the TDP had approached the Court at the eleventh hour and therefore is not entitled to any relief. It is also urged that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Revising Committee to release the film. It is therefore urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in R.Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1, Goldsmith vs. Bhoyrul 2, Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray 1 (1994) 6 SCC 632 2 [1997] Q.B. 459 7 vs. State of Maharashtra 3, F.A.Picture International vs. Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai 4, RBEF (Ritnand Balved Education Foundation) vs. Alok Kumar 5, Vadlapatla Naga Vara Prasad vs. Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai 6, M/s. Suryalok Film Factory vs. R.Malleshwari7, Raghunatha Rao Chakkilam vs. Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai 8, Arbaaz Khan Production Private Limited v. Northstar Entertainment Private Limited (decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Notice of Motion (L) No.1049 of 2016 in Suit (L) No.301 of 2016, dated 05.04.2016), Harinder Singh Sikka vs. Union of India (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).313/2018, dated 10.04.2018), ESSEL Infraprojects Limited vs. Devendra Prakash Mishra 9, Naveen Jindal vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. 10, Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. vs. K.Sarat Chandra 11, Ujjwal Anand Sharma vs. Union of India 12, 3 2003 (1) Mh.L.J 775 4 2005 (2) Mh.L.J 869 5 2006 (90) DRJ 714 6 2011 SCC OnLine AP 749 7 2012 SCC OnLine AP 231 8 2013 SCC OnLine AP 623 9 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1780 10 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1369 11 2015 SCC OnLine Hyderabad 822 12 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9576 8 Indian National Congress vs. Union of India 13, Nachiketa Walhekar vs. Central Board of Film Certification 14, Viacom 18 Media Private Limited vs. Union of India 15, Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Union of India 16, Atul Kumar Pandey. vs. Kumar Avinash 17, Tamil Nadu Telugu Yuva Sakthi vs. Union of India (decision of the Telangana High Court in W.P (PIL).No.137 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019), Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi 18, Kailash Gahlot vs. Vijender Gupta 19, Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited (decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No.522/2024, dated 15.01.2024) and decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia in Lim Lip Eng vs. Ong Ka Chuan 20.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.59 of 2024 has adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.56 of 2024. He has submitted that Mr. Nara Lokesh is not authorised to 13 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1628 : AIR 2017 Chh 160 14 (2018) 1 SCC 778 15 (2018) 1 SCC 761 16 (2018) 17 SCC 516 17 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 994 18 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146 19 2022 SCC OnLine Del 679 20 [2022] 4 AMR 753 9 file the writ petition as the authorisation has not been given to him by Mr. Nara Chandrababu Naidu and therefore, he has no locus to file the writ petition. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Viacom 18 Media Private Limited (supra). It is also urged that there cannot be a prior restraint until and unless the film is released.
12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for TDP submitted that the TDP had invoked the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as its right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated. The writ petition was filed for enforcement of the statutory right under Section 5B(1) and (2) of the Act and for violation of guideline 2(xviii) framed for certification of film by the CBFC notified under Section 5B(2) of the Act. Attention of this Court has been invited to paragraphs 7 to 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it has been contended that the TDP is an association/body of persons and is a juristic entity and is therefore entitled to maintain 10 the writ petition. It is urged that the TDP is an aggrieved person and therefore has locus to file the writ petition.
13. It is contended that under Rule 24(9) of the Certification Rules, the revising committee is required to assign reasons for certifying that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition i.e., fit for U certificate and in case of inconsistency between Form appended to the Certification Rules and the Certification Rules itself, the Rules shall prevail. Attention of this Court has been invited to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it has been contended that the learned Single Judge has held that no reasons have been assigned by the Revising Committee for certifying the film suitable for unrestricted public exhibition. It is contended that the decision making process of the Revising Committee of CBFC is amenable to judicial review. It is further contended that the procedural defect if any in filing the writ petition is curable in nature. In support of the aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on the decisions in Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 21, Jagdish Prasad vs. State of 21 AIR 1989 SC 2227 11 Rajasthan 22 and S.Shyamala Reddy vs. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 23.
14. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the record.
15. The freedom of creation by artistic means is a fundamental right and is covered under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, the same can be regulated. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 is an Act to make provision for the certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematographs.
16. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 as well as the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and the Guidelines contained in S.O.No.836E, dated 06.12.1991. Sections 5A and 5B of the Act are extracted below for the facility of reference:
5A. Certification of films.- (1) If, after examining a film or having it examined in the prescribed manner, the Board considers that-22
AIR 2011 SC 3189 23 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1256 12
(a) The film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or, as the case may be, for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of the nature mentioned in the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 4, it shall grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film a "U"
certificate or, as the case may be, a "UA" certificate; or
(b) The film is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, but is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults or, as the case may be, is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, it shall grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film an "A" certificate or, as the case may be, a "S" certificate, and cause the film to be so marked in the prescribed manner:
Provided that the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for which certificate has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b). (2) A certificate granted or an order refusing to grant a certificate in respect of any film shall be punished in the Gazette of India.
(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a certificate granted by the Board under this 13 section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years.
5B. Principles for guidance in certifying films:-
(1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.
(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-
section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.
17. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 have been framed. Rule 22 of the Certification Rules deals with Examining Committee, whereas Rule 24 deals with Revising Committee. Rule 22 is extracted below for the facility of reference.
22. Examining Committee:- (1) On receipt of an application under Rule 21, the Regional Officer shall appoint an Examining Committee to examine the film. The examination shall be made at the cost of the applicant on such date, at such place and at such time as the Regional Officer may determine. (2) The Examining Committee shall consist of,- 14
(a) in the case of a short film, a member of the advisory panel and an examining officer either of whom shall be a woman; and
(b) in the case of a long film, four members of the advisory panel and an examining officer of whom two persons shall be women;
Provided that if the examining officer is unavoidably absent at the examination of a film, the Examining Committee shall consist of two members of the advisory panel in a case falling under clause (a) and five members of the advisory panel in a case falling under clause (b);
Provided further that in the Examining Committee, in a case falling under clause (a) one member shall be a woman and in a case falling under clause (b) two members shall be women.
(3) The film to be examined by the Examining Committee shall be-
(a) in its final form with the background music and all sound effects duly recorded on the film itself;
(b) the title, castings and credits shall be displayed in the language of the dialogues in the film, and the same may be displayed in any other language if so desired by the applicant.
(4) All previews of films for the purposes of examination for certification and the reports and records relating thereto shall be treated as confidential.
(5) The names of the members of the Examining Committee examining the film shall not be disclosed to any official or non-official not concerned with the preview of the particular film or to any other person including the applicant or his representative. 15
(5A) Nothing in sub-rules (4) and (5) shall affect the disclosure of names of persons in the certificate granted by the Board.
(6) The applicant or his representative shall not be allowed to be presented inside the preview theatre.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rules (4), (5) and (6) the Chairman may by special or general order permit any member of the staff to be present at the preview to render such assistance as may be required.
(8) The Examining Committee shall examine the film having regard to the principles for guidance in certifying films specified in Section 5B(1) and the guidelines issued by Government under Section 5B(2).
(9) Immediately after the examination of the film each member of the Examining Committee attending the examination shall, before leaving the preview theatre record his opinion in writing in Form VIII set out in the Second Schedule spelling out in clear terms the reasons therefor and state whether he or she considers,-
(a) that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, i.e., fit for 'U' certificate; or
(b) that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition but with an endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child, i.e., fit for 'UA' certificate; or
(c) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, i.e., fit for 'A' certificate; or
(d) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any 16 profession or any class of persons having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film, i.e., fit for 'S' certificate; or
(e) that the film is suitable for grant of 'U' or 'UA' or 'A' or "S" certificate, as the case may be, if a specified portion or portions be excised or modified therefrom; or
(f) that the film is not suitable for unrestricted or restricted public exhibition, i.e., that the film be refused a certificate; and if the Chairman is away from the regional centre where the film is examined, the form aforesaid shall be prepared in duplicate.
(10) The examining officer shall distribute copies of the synopsis with credit titles and, songs among the members of the Committee and furnish them the form and such other documents as may be specified by the Board for making their recommendation.
(11) After the screening of the film, the examining officer shall see that-
(a) the recommendation of every member of the Committee is recorded in unambiguous terms and each excision or modification is properly specified in clear terms with reason or reasons therefor;
(b) the same is duly signed by the members of the Committee; and
(c) where the report of any member of the Committee is incomplete, that fact is brought to the notice of the member concerned before he leaves the preview theatre.
(12) The examining officer shall within three working days send the recommendations of all the 17 members of the Examining Committee to the Chairman and the Chairman is away from the centre where the film is examined, by registered post.
(13) It shall be personal responsibility of the examining officer to examine whether each and every guideline issued by Government has been followed and to bring any lapse or deviation to the notice of the Chairman.
(14) The quorum for the Examining Committee for a long film shall be four of whom at least two persons shall be women.
18. In exercise of powers under Section 5B (2) of the Act, the Central Government has laid down the principles for sanctioning the films for public exhibition. The aforesaid guidelines are reproduced below for the facility of reference:
1. The objectives of film certification will be 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 unduly curbed;
(c) certification is responsive to social change;
(d) the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment; and
(e) as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard.
2. In pursuance of the above objectives, the Board of Film Certification shall ensure that- 18
(i) anti-social activities such as violence are not glorified or justified.
(ii) the modus operandi of criminals, other
visuals or words likely to incite the
commission of any offence are not
depicted;
(iii) Scenes-
(a) Showing involvement of children in
violence as victims or as
perpetrators or as forced witness to
violence, or showing children as
being subjected to any form of child
abuse;
(b) Showing abuse or ridicule of
physically and mentally
handicapped persons; and
(c) Showing cruelty to, or abuse of,
animals, are not presented
needlessly;
(iv) pointless or avoidable scenes of violence, cruelty and horror, scenes of violence primarily intended to provide entertainment and such scenes as may have the effect of desensitising or dehumanizing people are not shown;
(v) scenes which have the effect of justifying or glorifying drinking are not shown;
(vi) scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorize drug addiction are not shown; (vi-a) scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorize consumption of tobacco or smoking are not shown;
(vii) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;
19
(viii) such dual meaning words as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed;
(ix) scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
(x) scenes involving sexual violence against women like attempt to rape, rape or any form of molestation, or scenes of similar nature are avoided, and if any such incident is germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown;
(xi) scenes showing sexual perversions shall be avoided and if such matters are germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown;
(xii) visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented;
(xiii) visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantism, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented;
(xiv) the sovereignty and integrity of India is not called in question;
(xv) the security of the State is not jeopardized or endangered;
(xvi) friendly relations with foreign States are not strained;
(xvii) public order is not endangered; (xviii) visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals, or contempt of court are not presented;
20
EXPLANATION: Scenes that tend to create scorn, disgrace or disregard of rules or undermine the dignity of court will come under the term "Contempt of Court" and (xix) National symbols and emblems are not shown except in accordance with the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950).
19. The controversy involved in these writ appeals can be summarized as follows - (i) Whether the TDP can be termed as an aggrieved person so as to maintain the writ petition;
(ii) Whether Mr. Nara Lokesh is authorized to file the petition; (iii) Whether the Revising Committee of CBFC is not required to assign any reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a film with excisions? and (iv) Whether the Revising Committee of the CBFC has assigned any reasons while granting 'U' certificate to the film with excisions?
20. TDP in the writ petition has sought a writ of certiorari. The existence of a legal right and infringement thereof are the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21
21. According to Halsbury's Laws of England (third edition, Volume 25) p.293, the expression "person aggrieved" is nowhere defined and must be construed by reference to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. The Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar 24 has dealt with the issue of locus standi to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction and has held as under:
12. According to most English decisions, in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person" and, in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfil that character, and is a "stranger", the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save in very special circumstances. This takes us to the further question: Who is an "aggrieved person" and what are the qualifications requisite for such a status?
The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or 24 (1976) 1 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 578 22 injury suffered by him. English courts have sometimes put a restricted and sometimes a wide construction on the expression "aggrieved person". However, some general tests have been devised to ascertain whether an applicant is eligible for this category so as to have the necessary locus standi or "standing" to invoke certiorari jurisdiction.
22. Thus, a person whose rights are affected or infringed is a person aggrieved and has locus to maintain the petition. The expression 'aggrieved person' is elastic and elusive concept and its scope and meaning depends on the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged and the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of person's interest and nature and extent of prejudice or injury suffered by him. It is well settled in law that rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in a case of habeas corpus or quo-warranto. Another exception to this Rule is where the writ petition is filed in public interest. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding locus of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in India and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the 23 cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hypertechnical grounds (see Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal 25). A person to whom the legal grievance has been caused, can maintain a writ petition (see Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India 26). The TDP is claiming violation of the statutory right under Section 5B of the Act and Rule 24 of the Certification Rules, and therefore cannot be said to be a stranger having no right. Therefore, it is an aggrieved person.
23. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India 27, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether a large body of persons having a common grievance though not belonging to registered Trade Union can maintain a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid issue was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court and it was held that processual jurisprudence in our country is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould and is broad-based and people-oriented and envisions access to justice through 'class actions' and therefore, the writ 25 (2002) 1 SCC 33 26 (2021) 3 SCC 136 27 (1981) 1 SCC 246 24 petition at the instance of an unrecognized association was held to be maintainable. The TDP is a political party, which is a body of persons, the members of which subscribe to a particular ideology. The TDP on behalf of its members has approached the court seeking violation of the statutory right under the Act and the Certification Rules.
24. A writ petition filed on behalf of someone is required to disclose the authority on whose behalf the writ petition has been filed remains a procedural requirement, so long as the person who has authorised filing of the petition, on his or its behalf does not dispute the authority of the person filing the writ petition. In the instant case, the writ petition was filed on 21.12.2023 on behalf of TDP by Mr. Nara Lokesh. Thereafter, on 22.12.2023 a letter of authority has been issued by Mr. Kinjarapu Atchennaidu instead of Mr. Nara Chandrababu Naidu. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the aforesaid procedural requirement having been complied with, the writ petition does not deserve dismissal on account of non-compliance of such a procedural requirement at the threshold. In this intra court appeal, even the authority of Mr. Kinjarapu Atchennaidu was challenged by the producer and it was 25 contended that Mr. Nara Chandrababu Naidu alone is competent to authorize Mr.Nara Lokesh to file the writ petition. Even the aforesaid procedural requirement has been complied with and a memo has been filed authorizing petitioner to prosecute the writ petition. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Nara Chandrababu Naidu or Mr. Kinjarapu Atchennaidu or any other office bearer of the TDP has not questioned the authority of Mr. Nara Lokesh to present the petition on behalf of TDP.
For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that TDP is an aggrieved person and Mr. Nara Lokesh has the authority to maintain writ petition on its behalf.
25. Now we proceed to deal with the issue, namely whether the Revising Committee of CBFC is not required to assign any reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a film with excisions and in the facts of the case, whether the same have been assigned. Undoubtedly, this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review can examine whether there has been infraction of the provisions of the Act and the Certification Rules made under, though true it is, that this Court cannot act as a Court of Appeal over the 26 decision taken by Revising Committee under the Act and the Certification Rules.
26. It is trite law that principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it (see Mangilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 28). The aforesaid principle has been reiterated with approval in Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa 29.
27. It is equally well settled legal proposition that in case of a conflict between the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Schedule, the provisions of the Act and the Rules shall 28 (2004) 2 SCC 447 29 (2024) 1 SCC 632 27 prevail. A Schedule in an Act of Parliament is merely a question of drafting and in case of any inconsistency, Schedule must yield to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is equally well settled legal proposition that a form prescribed under the Schedule can never be used as an aid in interpretation of a statute and a schedule cannot wipe the effect of statutory provision (see Aphali Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tulsyan NEC Limited 30 and Jagdish Prasad (supra)).
28. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Rule 24 of the Certification Rules and relevant extract of Form VIII appended to the Rules, which are extracted below for the facility of reference.
24. Revising Committee:- (1) On receipt of the record referred to in Rule 22, the Chairman may, of his own motion or on the request of the applicant, refer it to a Revising Committee constituted for the purpose.
(2) The Revising Committee shall, subject to sub- rule (5), consist of a Chairman and not more than nine members, being members of the Board or members of 30 (2011) 2 SCC 1 28 any of the advisory panels, to be specified by the Chairman:
Provided that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (11), the Chairman shall give due representation to women in the Committee by nominating such number of women members as he thinks fit.
(3) The Chairman or in his absence a member of the Board nominated by the Chairman shall preside at every meeting of the Revising Committee.
(4) The Regional Officer of the Centre where the application was received under rule 21, may be invited to attend any meeting of a Revising Committee and participate in proceedings thereof but he shall have no right to vote thereat.
(5) No member of the advisory panel who has been a member of the Examining Committee for any film shall be a member of the Revising Committee in respect of the same film.
(6) The provisions of sub-rules (4) to (8) of Rule 22 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the examination of film by the Revising Committee or the Board.
(7) The Revising Committee shall examine the film at the applicant's expense, on such date, at such place and at such time, as the Chairman may determine.
(8) For the purpose of examination by a Revising Committee,-
(a) the applicant shall present the same clear runnable print of the film which was shown to the Examining Committee and he shall make no change whatsoever in it and he shall furnish the necessary declaration in writing in that behalf;
(b) the applicant shall be required to furnish fifteen typed or printed copes of the complete synopsis of the film together with 29 the full credit titles and of the full text of songs, if any, with reel number, and where he has made a representation under sub-
section (2) of section 4, fifteen copies thereof shall also be furnished:
Provided that where the film is in a language, other than English or any Indian language, the applicant shall furnish fifteen typed or printed copies of the translation in English or in Hindi of the synopsis together with full credit titles and of the full text of the songs, if any:
Provided further that in the case of a film referred to in the preceding proviso, the Chairman may direct the applicant to furnish also fifteen typed or printed copies of the translation in English or Hindi of the full text of the dialogue, speeches or commentary:
Provided also that where the Chairman is satisfied that the applicant is not able to furnish the documents specified in this sub-rule for reasons beyond his control the Chairman may direct that the submission of such documents be dispensed with.
(9) Immediately after examination of the film, each member of the Revising Committee shall before leaving the preview theatre record his recommendations in writing in Form VIII set out in the Second Schedule spelling out in clear terms the reasons therefor and stating whether he or she considers-
(a) that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, i.e., fit for 'U' certificate; or
(b) that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition but with an endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see the film should be 30 considered by the parents or guardian of such child, i.e., fit for 'UA' certificate; or
(c) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, i.e., fit for 'A' certificate; or
(d) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film, i.e., fit for 'S' certificate; or
(e) that the film is suitable for grant of 'U' or 'UA' or 'A' or "S" certificate, as the case may be, if a specified portion or portions be excised or modified therefrom; or
(f) that the film is not suitable for unrestricted or restricted public exhibition, i.e., that the film be refused a certificate;
and if the Chairman is away from the regional centre where the film is examined the form aforesaid shall be prepared in duplicate.
(10) The Presiding Officer of the Revising Committee shall, within three days, send the recommendations of all the members of the Revising Committee to the Chairman and where the Chairman is away from the center where the film is examined, by registered post.
(11) The quorum of the Revising Committee shall be five members of whom at least two persons shall be women;
Provided that the number of women members shall not be less than one-half of the total members of a Committee constituted under sub- rule (2).
(12) The decision of a Revising Committee shall be that of the majority of the members attending the 31 examination of the film and, in the event of an equality of votes, the presiding officer shall have a second or casting vote:
Provided that where the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the Committee, the Board shall itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee and that the decision of the Board or the second Revising Committee, as the case may be, shall be final.
FORM VIII [See rules 22(9) and 24(9)] CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION REPORT OF MEMBER OF EXAMINING/ REVISING COMMITTEE N.B :-Please study the guidelines issued by government once again before you preview of the film.
Title of the film and language ............ Colour/Black and White Length of the film ..............(meters)/Running time ..................(minutes) Reels.............Cassette...............Gauge...............
Date of examination.........................Name of the member...........
I. I certify that I have carefully examined the above film with reference to the guidelines.
I recommend refusal to certificate to the film. OR I recommend the grant of following certificate 'U'/ 'UA'/ 'A'/ 'S' with excisions or/and modifications without excisions or/and modifications [Delete whichever is not applicable] II. In the case of grant of 'S' certificate, please specify the class or group of persons which should constitute the specialized audiences :-
........................................................................ ..........................
........................................................................ ..........................
.........
III. Reasons for refusal of certificate or grant of 'UA'/ 'A'/ 'S' certificate.32
........................................................................ ..........................
........................................................................ ..........................
.........
Note:- 'U'-Unrestricted public exhibition. 'UA'-Unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement that it is necessary to caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child.
'A'-Public exhibition restricted to adults. 'S'-Public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons.
IV. Details of excisions/modifications (Please see notes below) Sl. Reel Clear and specific description Reasons with No. No. of excisions or modifications specific reference to guidelines
29. Thus, on perusal of Rule 24(9) of the Certification Rules, it is evident that each member of the Revising Committee before leaving the preview theatre record his recommendations in writing in Form VIII set out in Second Schedule spelling out in clear terms the reasons therefor (underlining ours). Merely because in Columns III and IV, the word 'U' is missing, it cannot be inferred that no reasons are required to be given in case film is certified for public viewing with 'U' certificate. Such an interpretation is clearly in contravention of Rule 24(9) of the Certification Rules, which require reasons to be mentioned while granting the certificate. In any case, in the event of any 33 inconsistency between the Schedule and the Rules, the provision in the Rule has to be given effect. Therefore, the contention that the Revising Committee while granting 'U' certificate is not required to assign any reasons and is required to assign the same only when UA/A/S certificate is granted by CBFC is misconceived.
30. It is pertinent to note that the Examining Committee while viewing the movie had refused to issue a certificate and had held as under:
VYUHAM (TELUGU) Reasons for "Refusal" of certificate The film is a biography of the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy and the film makers are claiming it to be based on true events. The political timelines portrayed in the film are from the death of Shri Y.S.Rajashekhara Reddy up to the election of present CM and also the sub-judice matter of Skill Development scam in which Ex-CM Sri Chandrababu Naidu has been arrested.
Against this backdrop, the makers have used the actual person's names, political parties, party symbols, montages, voiceovers etc. Another prime issue of concerns is the uncanny and striking resemblance of characters in the film with actual public and political figures/celebrities. Many of the above persons including Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Chandrababu Naidu, Pawan Kalyan, Shiranjeevi, Konijeti Rosaiah etc are shown in 34 negative light. Few of the above are conspiring against Jagan Mohan Reddy to avoid him coming into power by implicating him in CBI/ED cases. As such the film is derogatory towards these persons and their political parties which is against guidelines 2(xviii).
Also the film by its decisive stand that Chandrababu Naidu has received kick-backs in Skill Development scam, may lead to contempt of Court.
Further the model code of conduct is in place in Telangana and the film in its present form has the potential to diminish as well as advance the electoral prospects of separate political parties, which is against the Election Commission order.
Due to all the above reasons, the examination committee has unanimously decided to "Refuse" certificate to the film.
31. We have perused the record of the Revising Committee produced by learned Additional Solicitor General of India. The Revising Committee has not assigned any reasons for granting 'U' certificate to the movie with excisions. Therefore, the action of the Revising Committee in granting 'U' certificate to the movie with excisions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is in contravention of the Rule 24(9) of the Certification Rules. In view of preceding analysis, it is held that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons while granting 'U' certificate to the movie with excisions. It is further held that no 35 reasons have been assigned by the Revising Committee while granting 'U' certificate to the movie with excisions.
32. For the reasons assigned by us in the preceding paragraphs, we agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democratic society which is governed by a rule of law. The Producer has a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India which permits him to allude to true incidents with his perspective. The producer has invested money for producing the film and is also required to book the theatres in advance to ensure the release of the movie. The Chairman of the CBFC has already initiated the action for constitution of the Revising Committee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Chairman shall re-constitute the Revising Committee, if not already constituted, and the Revising Committee shall view the movie and duly communicate its decision for certification of the film to the appellants on or before 09.02.2024.36
33. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. In the result, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 05.02.2024 Note: Issue order copy today.
(By order) Pln