Case Note & Summary
These appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment dismissing letters patent appeals that challenged a learned single judge's order quashing the 'A' certificate for the film 'Bandit Queen'. The film, based on Mala Sen's book 'India's Bandit Queen' and the life of Phoolan Devi, depicted her childhood marriage, abuse, rape, humiliation, and eventual revenge. It was presented for certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 on 17 August 1994. The Examining Committee referred it to the Revising Committee under Rule 24(1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. The Revising Committee recommended an 'A' certificate with excisions and modifications on 19 July 1995. On appeal under Section 5C of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal, chaired by retired Bombay High Court judge Lentin J. and three women members, allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal found the film portrayed Phoolan Devi's trials and tribulations and that expletives were used as colloquial language in the Chambal region, not sensual or sexual. It directed deletion of one rape sequence, reduction of others, and retention of nudity and humiliation scenes as integral and revulsion-creating. On this basis, an 'A' certificate was granted. The film was screened at the Siri Fort Film Festival on 31 August 1995 and publicly from 25 January 1996. On 27 January 1996, the first respondent, a Hindu Gujjar and president of the Gujjar Gaurav Sansthan, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the certificate and restrain exhibition. He alleged that the film depicted the Gujjar community as rapists, particularly in the rape scene involving Babu Gujjar, and that it was obscene, lowered the community's reputation, and violated his rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the certificate, and directed the Censor Board to re-examine the film after excisions and modifications. The Division Bench upheld this, viewing the film and examining three aspects: the two-minute total frontal nudity scene, the twenty-second exposed posterior in the rape scene, and the use of expletives. The Division Bench held that the frontal nudity scene was indecent within Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act and Article 19(2), and offended guidelines 2(ix), 2(xi) and 2(vii). It found the posterior scene degrading to women and inconsistent with the Tribunal's flash direction; it also directed deletion of expletives. The Division Bench concluded that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by application of wrong tests. The Supreme Court heard the appeals; however, the provided excerpt ends before the Supreme Court's final decision and order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Reasonable Restrictions on Decency - Constitution of India, Article 19(2); Cinematograph Act, 1952, Section 5-B - The film 'Bandit Queen' was granted an 'A' certificate after the Appellate Tribunal found its depiction of Phoolan Devi's humiliation and revenge created sympathy and revulsion, not sensuality. The High Court quashed the certificate holding that a scene of total frontal nudity was indecent under Section 5-B and Article 19(2). Held that the High Court inferred indecency from the Tribunal's finding of revulsion. (Paras not mentioned) B) Cinematograph Act - Film Certification Guidelines - Clause 1 and 2 of 1991 Guidelines under Section 5-B(2) - Objectives of film certification include ensuring the medium remains responsible, artistic expression is not unduly curbed, and certification is responsive to social change; the Board must ensure human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity. The High Court held the frontal nudity scene offended guidelines para 2(ix), 2(xi) and 2(vii). (Paras not mentioned) C) Film Censorship - Depiction of Rape and Nudity - Frontal Nudity and Exposed Posterior - Cinematograph Act, 1952, Section 5-B - The Tribunal directed reduction of rape sequences and retention of nudity as integral to the story, comparing it to 'Schindler's List'; the High Court found the posterior scene inconsistent with the flash direction and degrading to women. Held that the scene of violent rape denigrated and degraded women. (Paras not mentioned) D) Film Censorship - Expletives and Abusive Language - Vernacular Expletives - Cinematograph Act, 1952, Section 5-B - The Tribunal permitted certain vernacular abuses as colloquial and part of daily life in the Chambal region; the High Court concluded they should be deleted. Held that the High Court directed deletion of expletives. (Paras not mentioned) E) Administrative Law - Appellate Tribunal under Cinematograph Act - Expertise and Application of Standards - Cinematograph Act, 1952, Section 5C - The Appellate Tribunal, comprising a retired judge and three women members qualified to judge the effect of films, allowed the appeal with modifications. The High Court held the Tribunal's order was vitiated by use of wrong tests under Section 5-B. Held that the Division Bench found the Tribunal applied incorrect legal tests. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Delhi High Court was correct in quashing the 'A' certificate granted to the film 'Bandit Queen' on grounds of indecency, frontal nudity, rape depiction, and abusive language under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the 1991 Guidelines; and whether the Appellate Tribunal's order granting certification with modifications was vitiated by application of wrong tests.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court's final decision is not mentioned in the provided judgment text.
Law Points
- Section 5-B of Cinematograph Act
- 1952 prohibits certification of film if against decency
- Article 19(2) of Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression in interests of decency
- 1991 Guidelines require film certification to ensure medium remains responsible
- artistic expression not unduly curbed
- and human sensibilities not offended by vulgarity
- obscenity or depravity
- Appellate Tribunal under Section 5C consists of members qualified to judge effect of films on public
