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

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

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

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

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

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

(1994) 6 SCC 632

[1997] Q.B. 459

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,

2003 (1) Mh.L.J 775

2005 (2) Mh.L.J 869

2006 (90) DRJ 714

2011 SCC OnLine AP 749

2012 SCC OnLine AP 231

2013 SCC OnLine AP 623

2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1780

2014 SCC OnLine Del 1369

2015 SCC OnLine Hyderabad 822

2017 SCC OnLine Del 9576

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

2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1628 : AIR 2017 Chh 160

(2018) 1 SCC 778

(2018) 1 SCC 761

(2018) 17 SCC 516

2020 SCC OnLine Cal 994

2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146

2022 SCC OnLine Del 679

[2022] 4 AMR 753

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

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

AIR 1989 SC 2227

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-

AIR 2011 SC 3189

2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1256

(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

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,-

(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.

(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

(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 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

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-

(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;

(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;

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. 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

(1976) 1 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 578

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

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

(2002) 1 SCC 33

(2021) 3 SCC 136

(1981) 1 SCC 246

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

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

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

(2004) 2 SCC 447

(2024) 1 SCC 632

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

(2011) 2 SCC 1

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

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

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

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.

........................................................................ ..........................

.........

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

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

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

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.