1. Petition Overview:

• Petition Filed: Seeking a stay on the release of the film "MATCH FIXING" until Special Case No. 1 of 2016 is decided.
• Grounds: The petitioner, an accused in the case, argued that the film's portrayal of "true events" might affect the fairness of the trial.

2. Argument by Petitioner:

• The petitioner cited the case Mushtaq Moosa Tarani vs. Government of India (2005 SCC OnLine Bom 385), where the film "BLACK FRIDAY" was stayed on similar grounds.
• Petitioner argued that the trailer of "MATCH FIXING" suggested it was based on true events and thus could prejudice the court's judgment.

3. Respondent No. 4's Rebuttal:

• Claim: The film is purely fictional and based on the book "The Game Behind Saffron Terror" by Kanwar Khatana.
• Evidence Submitted: A detailed disclaimer stating the film is fictionalized and dramatized with no claim to historical authenticity.
• Court's Review: The producer agreed to modify the disclaimer for clarity as suggested by the court.

4. Modified Disclaimer:

The disclaimer clearly states:

• The film is fictionalized and dramatized.
• It is not a commentary, documentary, or biopic.
• Any resemblance to actual events or persons is purely coincidental and unintentional.
• The creators respect all perspectives and do not intend to defame or incite sentiments.

5. Court's Reasoning:

• Distinguished facts from the Mushtaq Moosa case:
  • "BLACK FRIDAY" was based on real events and presented as a dramatization of those events.
  • "MATCH FIXING" explicitly claims to be fictional.
• Evidence in Special Case No. 1 of 2016 is complete, and final arguments are underway.
• The disclaimer sufficiently mitigates concerns about prejudice.

6. Judgment:

• The petition was dismissed as the court found the apprehension of prejudice unfounded.
• No costs were imposed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution):
   • Upheld the producer's right to creative expression with necessary safeguards (disclaimer).
2. Principle of Fair Trial (Article 21):
   • Addressed concerns about protecting the integrity of the judicial process but found them unsubstantiated in this case.

Ratio Decidendi:

• A fictionalized and dramatized work with a comprehensive disclaimer does not inherently prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings unless a direct nexus between the film's content and the trial is established.

Subjects:

• Media Law, Free Speech vs. Judicial Process

• Freedom of Speech, Creative Expression, Fair Trial, Judicial Prejudice, Media and Law