Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three petitions filed before the Bombay High Court seeking a ban on the film 'The Kashmir Files' or revocation of its certification. The petitioners, Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta, Amin Patel, and Shraddha Amol Surve, alleged that the film contains hate speech, misrepresents historical facts, and has the potential to incite violence against the Kashmiri Muslim community. They argued that the film violates the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Constitution of India. The respondents included the film's producers, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and the Union of India. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M.S. Karnik, heard the matter on February 23, 2022. The court noted that the film had been certified by the CBFC with an 'A' (adults only) certificate and a 'V' (with caution) disclaimer. The court held that pre-censorship of a certified film is not permissible under the law, and the court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the CBFC. The court found no material to suggest that the film incites violence or hatred, or that it violates any law. The court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to make films, and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) must be narrowly construed. The court dismissed all three petitions with costs of Rs. 25,000 each, holding that the PILs were not maintainable and were an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Pre-censorship of certified films - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India - The court held that once a film is certified by the CBFC under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the court cannot impose a ban or direct pre-censorship unless there is a clear and present danger of incitement to violence or law and order issues. The film does not contain hate speech or incitement to violence, and the petitioners' apprehensions are speculative. (Paras 1-10) B) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Certification of films - Section 5E and 5F - The court held that the CBFC has the exclusive jurisdiction to certify films, and the court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the CBFC. The film was certified with 'A' (adults only) and 'V' (with caution) categories, and there is no material to show that the certification was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. (Paras 1-10) C) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Alleged hate speech and misrepresentation - The court held that the PILs are not maintainable as they seek to stifle free speech and expression. The petitioners have not demonstrated any violation of fundamental rights or any legal injury to the public. The court dismissed the PILs with costs of Rs. 25,000 each. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the film 'The Kashmir Files' should be banned or its certification revoked on grounds of alleged hate speech, misrepresentation of facts, and potential to incite violence, and whether the court can exercise pre-censorship over a film already certified by the CBFC.
Final Decision
The court dismissed all three petitions with costs of Rs. 25,000 each, holding that the PILs are not maintainable and that the film does not warrant a ban or revocation of certification.
Law Points
- Pre-censorship of certified films not permissible
- Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
- Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
- Cinematograph Act
- 1952 certification
- No hate speech or incitement to violence
- No violation of fundamental rights
