Delhi High Court
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 March, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 29th March, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 2357/2016 & C.M.No.10107/2016 (stay)
DELHI SIKH GURDWARA
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.A.P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.S.S.Ahluwalia, Mr.Gurbaksh Singh,
Mr.J.S.Jolly, Mr.J.P.Singh, Mr.Lakshmi Chand,
Mr.Vijinder Singh, Mr.Avtar Singh, Ms.Daljeet
Kaur, Mr.Kuljeet Singh, Mr.Sachdeva,
Mr.P.S.Bawa, Mr.Surjeet Singh, Ms.Avneet Kaur,
Ms.Inderjyot Kaur, Mr.Jagmohan Singh,
Mr.Satwinder Singh, Mr.Mohan Singh,
Mr.Ravinder Singh, Mr.Rajinder Singh,
Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Mr.Manmeet Singh Maini,
Mr.Harshbir Singh Kohli, Mr.Vijay Kumar Rao,
Mr.Balwinder Singh Bagga, Ms.Lal Ronguri,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Anil
Soni, CGSC, Mr.Naginder Benipal, Ms.Shreya
Sinha, Mr.Rajul Jain, Mr.Sumit Misra, Advs. for
R-1&2.
Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Angad Singh
Dugal, Adv. for R-3.
Mr.Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. for R-4.
Mr.Sukumar Patt Joshi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sumit
Kumar Shukla, Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
W.P.(C) No.2357/2016 Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
: Ms.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and Dharam Prachar
Committee together filed this public interest petition with a prayer to ban the
release of the film 'Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.' in theatres, online networks,
websites as well as its broadcasting on television. A further direction is
sought to respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the certificate 'U/A' granted to the
said film by the respondent No.2/Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC) under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
2. We have heard Sh.A.P.S.Ahluwalia, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners as well as Sh.Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG who appeared for
respondents No.1 and 2 on advance notice. We have also heard Sh.Amit
Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3,
Sh.Amitabh Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4
and Sh.Sukumar Patt Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.5.
3. The film in question has been produced by the respondent No.4 and
the respondent No.5 is the Director. Respondent No.3 is stated to be the
distributor who is holding the marketing rights of the film. It is not in
dispute that after examining the film in question, the respondent No.2/CBFC
granted U/A certificate to the film in question which means that the film is
found to be suitable for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement
of the nature mentioned in the proviso to Section 4(1)(i) of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952. It is also not disputed before us that the film is
scheduled to be released on 22.04.2016.
4. It is alleged in the writ petition that the film in question has
characterized Sikh community in a defamatory and denigrating manner and
has made mockery of Sikhs. On the basis of the posters of the film as well
as the trailor of the film which has been released on the internet, it is alleged
by the petitioners that the film is based on the Sikh characters who are being
portrayed as clowns and that the film is nothing but an attempt to portray the
Sikh community as a laughing stock to the world at large. Contending that
the release of the film would affect the interest of Sikh community, the
petitioners, therefore, prayed for a direction to ban the release of the film in
question.
5. It is contended by Sh.Ahluwalia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners that as is evident from the trailor and the posters, the film
in question attempts to project the Sikh community in a derogatory manner
and violates the equal rights and status guaranteed under the Constitution of
India.
6. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respondents No.3 to 5,
on instructions submitted that the posters of the film which are alleged to be
objectionable in the writ petition have already been withdrawn. It is also
submitted by the learned Senior Counsels that the apprehension of the
petitioners that the film is in complete disrespect to Sikh sentiments and that
it would hurt the feelings of the Sikh community is without any basis.
7. Though the respondents No.3 made available to this Court a CD of the
film in question, instead of this Court viewing the film and deciding the
question as to whether the contents of the film would prejudicially affect the
rights of the Sikh community or not, we consider it appropriate to direct the
respondent No.2/CBFC, which is a statutory body of experts, to consider the
tenability of the objections raised by the petitioners in the light of the
provisions of the Cinematograph Act and the rules made thereunder as well
as the guidelines issued by the Central Government and to take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law.
8. It is pleaded by the petitioners that they have already made a
representation bringing to the notice of the respondent No.2/CBFC that the
title as well as the contents of the film in question are objectionable and are
offending the sentiments of the Sikh community. It is their grievance that
the respondent No.2/CBFC failed to take the said objections into
consideration.
9. It is also brought to our notice that the remedy of appeal provided
under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is available only to a
person, who apply for a certificate in respect of a film and that the revisional
powers under Section 6 is exercisable by the Central Government suo moto
but not on application by the aggrieved party.
10. In the facts of this case, we, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct
the respondent No.2/CBFC to treat this petition as a representation and
consider whether the U/A certificate issued to the film in question requires
reconsideration. The respondents No.3 to 5 are permitted to submit their
response, if any, to the allegations made by the petitioners within 2 days
from today. The respondent No.2/CBFC, thereafter, shall provide an
opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass an appropriate order
in accordance with law on or before 08.04.2016 and communicate the same
to the petitioners.
11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J.
MARCH 29, 2016
'anb'
