Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, an accused in Special Case No.1 of 2016 pending before the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, filed a writ petition seeking a stay on the release of the film 'MATCH FIXING' until the final decision in his trial. The Petitioner argued that the film's trailer suggested it was based on true events, which could prejudice the fair and free trial. The Petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment in Mushtaq Moosa Tarani v. Government of India, where the court had restrained the release of the film 'BLACK FRIDAY' until judgment in the related trial. The Respondents, including the film producer (Art Arena Creations Pvt. Ltd.), contended that the film was purely fictional, based on the book 'The Game Behind Saffron Terror', and not a true account. The producer tendered a detailed disclaimer to be exhibited at the start of the film, stating it is a fictionalized and dramatized version, not a commentary or documentary, and no scenes should be construed as true. The court suggested modifications to the disclaimer, which the producer accepted. The court held that the disclaimer adequately addressed any concerns of prejudice. The court distinguished the Mushtaq Moosa case, noting that in that case the film claimed to be based on true events, whereas here the film is explicitly fictional. The court found the Petitioner's apprehension misconceived and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Right to Fair Trial - Stay of Film Release - Petitioner sought stay of film 'MATCH FIXING' claiming it would prejudice his trial in Special Case No.1 of 2016 - Court held that since the film is fictional and based on a book with a clear disclaimer stating it is not a true recreation, there is no reasonable apprehension of prejudice to the trial - Distinguishing earlier precedent where film claimed to be based on true events (Paras 2-5).
B) Media Law - Disclaimer - Sufficiency of Disclaimer - The court accepted a comprehensive disclaimer exhibited at the beginning of the film stating it is a fictionalized and dramatized version, not a commentary or documentary, and no scenes should be construed as true - Such disclaimer negates any claim of prejudice to pending trial (Paras 3-4).
C) Precedent - Distinguishing on Facts - Mushtaq Moosa Tarani v. Government of India (2005 SCC OnLine Bom 385) distinguished - In that case, the film 'BLACK FRIDAY' claimed to be based on true events and the book claimed to be a true story, whereas here the film is explicitly fictional - Hence no stay warranted (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the release of a film allegedly based on true events should be stayed to protect the right to fair trial of an accused in a pending criminal case.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The court directed that the disclaimer as modified by the court shall be exhibited at the beginning of the film.
Law Points
- Freedom of expression
- Right to fair trial
- Balance between fundamental rights
- Disclaimer as safeguard against prejudice
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (11) 140
Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 34452 of 2024
B. P. Colabawalla, Somasekhar Sundaresan
Mr. Harish Pandya (through VC) with Ms. Anita Pandey, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Dhrutiman Joshi for Petitioner; Mr. Adithya Iyer with Advait Helekar, Jayesh Bhosale, Vijit Shinde, Manoj Borkar for Respondent No.4; Ms. Nirali Atha i/b Dua Associates for Respondent No.5
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit
National Investigating Agency, Mumbai; Union of India; Central Board of Film Certification; Art Arena Creations Pvt. Ltd.; Zee Entertainment Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking stay on release of film 'MATCH FIXING' pending trial in Special Case No.1 of 2016.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a stay on the release of the film 'MATCH FIXING' until the final decision in Special Case No.1 of 2016.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, an accused in Special Case No.1 of 2016, apprehended that the film's release would prejudice his fair and free trial as the trailer suggested it was based on true events.
Previous Decisions
The petition was originally filed on the Criminal Side and later converted to a Civil Writ Petition pursuant to an order dated 13 November 2024.
Issues
Whether the release of the film 'MATCH FIXING' should be stayed to protect the right to fair trial of the accused in Special Case No.1 of 2016.
Whether the film is based on true events or is fictional, and whether a disclaimer can mitigate any potential prejudice.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the film's trailer suggested it was based on true events, which could influence the trial judge and prejudice the fair trial, relying on Mushtaq Moosa Tarani v. Government of India.
Respondent No.4 (producer) argued that the film is purely fictional, based on a book, and a comprehensive disclaimer would be exhibited stating it is not a true recreation, thus no prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
A film that is explicitly fictional and accompanied by a clear disclaimer stating it is not a true recreation of events does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice to a pending trial, and therefore no stay on its release is warranted. The earlier precedent in Mushtaq Moosa is distinguishable because in that case the film claimed to be based on true events.
Judgment Excerpts
Once we find that this is the disclaimer that will be exhibited, we do not think that the apprehension of the Petitioner is well founded.
As far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Pandya in the case of Mushtaq Moosa is concerned, we find that the same is clearly distinguishable on facts.
The facts before us are completely different. As mentioned earlier, the present film is not based on any true events but is a fictionalized and a dramatized version...
Procedural History
The writ petition was originally filed on the Criminal Side of the Bombay High Court. It was later amended and converted into a Civil Writ Petition pursuant to an order passed on 13 November 2024. The matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 14 November 2024, and was dismissed on the same day.
