Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nazia Elahi Khan vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 30 August, 2022
August 30, 2022
Item No. 12
Court No.1
PA(RB)
WPA (P) 397 of 2022
Nazia Elahi Khan
vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Diganta Bose
... for the petitioner
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Ld. AG
Mr. Talay M. Siddiqui,
Ms. Adreeka Pandey, Advocates
... for the State
In this public interest petition, the petitioner has
prayed for a direction to the State authorities to prohibit
or suspend the exhibition of film "Laal Singh Chaddha" in
the theatres all across the State of West Bengal through
the exercise of power conferred by Section 6(1) of the
West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (for short,
'the Act of 1954').
The plea raised in the petition is that in the State of
West Bengal, the current situation is extremely volatile
and in the social media, there is a move to oppose the
film. The suspension or prohibition of exhibition of the
film has been sought on the plea that it would lead to
breach of peace and tranquility in the State.
Learned Advocate General has opposed the petition
by submitting that the issue involved in the present case
is already covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
2
WPA (P) 397 of 2022
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the record, we find that the film has already
been released on 11th of August, 2022. Substantial time
has passed thereafter. Learned Advocate General has
informed that no untoward incident has taken place
relating to the release of the film till now. Hence, we find
the apprehension raised by the petitioner is unfounded.
That apart, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Indibily Creative Private Limited and Others vs.
Government of West Bengal and Others reported in
(2020) 12 SCC 436 in a case where certain restrictions
were put by the State of West Bengal on the exhibition of
the film "Bhobishyoter Bhoot", has considered the legality
of such restrictions and has held that rights of artists are
to be placed above popular notions on acceptability and
unacceptability. Those who feel film is unacceptable has
the option not to watch it. It has further been held that it
is impermissible for the police without the statutory
authority to interfere in screening of satirical film which
received certification from the Censor Board. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has expressed that if the right of the
playwright, artist, musician and actor are to be subjected
to popular notions of what is or is not acceptable, the
right to freedom of speech and expression itself and its
guarantee under the Constitution will be rendered
illusory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case has
3
WPA (P) 397 of 2022
duly considered Section 6 of the Act of 1954 also and has
held that :-
"44. The statutory authority to certify a film for
public exhibition is vested in the CBFC under the
provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Sections
4, 5, 5-A and 5-B provided a statutory code for the
examination and certification of films for public
exhibition. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-B provides for
the grounds on which a film may not be certified for
public exhibition. An order refusing to grant
certification is subject to the remedies stipulated in
the Act. The State Act [Section 6 of the West Bengal
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954] and the Central Act
[Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952] provide
the conditions in which the State Government, or as
the case may be, the Central Government (or a local
authority) may suspend the exhibition of a film,
where it is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Any
order which is issued under the terms of these
statutory provisions is subject to statutory control as
well as to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Article 226 or, as the case may be, the
original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32.
These statutes are to be interpreted in the rule of law
framework. An excess or abuse of statutory power is
amenable to constitutional guarantees which protect
the citizen against arbitrary State action.
45. The danger which this case exemplifies is the
peril of subjecting the freedom of speech and
expression of the citizen to actions which are not
contemplated by the statute and lie beyond the
lawful exercise of public power. All exercises of
authority in pursuance of enabling statutory
provisions are amenable to statutory remedies and
are subject to judicial oversight under a regime of
constitutional remedies. The exercise of statutory
authority is not uncontrolled in a regime based on
the rule of law. But what do citizens who have a
legitimate right to exhibit a film confront when they
are told that a film which is duly certified and slated
for release is unceremoniously pulled off the
exhibiting theatres without the authority of law?
Such attempts are insidious and pose a grave danger
to personal liberty and to free speech and
expression. They are insidious because they are not
4
WPA (P) 397 of 2022
backed by the authority of law. They pose grave
dangers to free speech because the citizen is left in
the lurch without being informed of the causes or the
basis of the action. This has the immediate effect of
silencing speech and the expression of opinion.
46. Contemporary events reveal that there is a
growing intolerance: intolerance which is
unaccepting of the rights of others in society to freely
espouse their views and to portray them in print, in
the theatre or in the celluloid media. Organised
groups and interests pose a serious danger to the
existence of the right to free speech and expression.
If the right of the playwright, artist, musician or
actor were to be subjected to popular notions of what
is or is not acceptable, the right itself and its
guarantee under the Constitution would be rendered
illusory. The true purpose of art, as manifest in its
myriad forms, is to question and provoke. Art in an
elemental sense reflects a human urge to question
the assumptions on which societal values may be
founded. In questioning prevailing social values and
popular cultures, every art form seeks to espouse a
vision. Underlying the vision of the artist is a desire
to find a new meaning for existence. The artist, in an
effort to do so, is entitled to the fullest liberty and
freedom to critique and criticise. Satire and irony are
willing allies of the quest to entertain while at the
same time to lead to self-reflection. We find in the
foibles of others an image of our own lives. Our
experiences provide meaning to our existence. Art is
as much for the mainstream as it is for the margins.
The Constitution protects the ability of every
individual citizen to believe as much as to
communicate, to conceptualise as much as to share."
In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court
had issued mandamus restraining the State from taking
recourse to any form of extra-constitutional means to
prevent the unlawful screening of the film and had also
directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 20
lakhs to the petitioner.
WPA (P) 397 of 2022
Having regard to the above, we are of the opinion
that no case is made out to grant the prayer made in the
present public interest petition. The petition is found to
devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]
[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]
