Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Mushtaq Moosa Tarani, accused No. 44 in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts trial (Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993), under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The petitioner sought suspension of the screening and circulation of the Hindi film ‘Black Friday’, a docudrama based on the book by journalist S. Hussain Zaidi, until the judgment in the trial was delivered. He contended that the film, which depicted real persons with their actual names and portrayed them as criminals, would interfere with the administration of justice, constitute contempt of court, and defame him, thereby violating his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The film was certified by the Central Board of Film Certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petitioner alleged that the film's release would prejudice the judge's impartiality, although the trial evidence and arguments had concluded and the judgment was awaited. He also raised concerns about his personal security, citing instances of accused persons killed or attacked while on bail. The respondents, including the film-makers and the Union of India, argued that the judge, not a jury, would decide based solely on evidence, so no clear and imminent prejudice existed; they stressed that the film was based on the prosecution case and public domain facts, and that disclaimers had been added, including the removal of the words ‘True Story’ following an order of the TADA court. They invoked the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and stated they were willing to balance competing claims short of suspending the release. The State of Maharashtra intervened, claiming the film caused prejudice to the prosecution as well. On 27 January 2005, the High Court passed an ad-interim order restraining the film’s release; a special leave petition against that order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Rule was issued and the petition heard finally at the admission stage. The judgment reserves the final decision after considering the submissions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law – Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression – Reasonable Restrictions – Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) of the Constitution of India – The court considered the balance between the right to free speech and artistic expression and the right to a fair trial under Article 21, noting that Article 19(2) permits restrictions on grounds of contempt of court and defamation (Paras 8-9). B) Criminal Contempt – Interference with Administration of Justice – Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner argued that the film scandalises the court and prejudices pending proceedings; the respondents contended that with evidence closed and a judge deciding the case, there was no imminent prejudice (Paras 5-6, 10). C) Cinematograph Act – Certification of Films – Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 – The challenge to the CBFC’s certification was based on the allegation that the film involves contempt of court and defamation; the respondents highlighted the use of disclaimers and the removal of the term “True Story” to mitigate concerns (Paras 4-6, 9). D) Right to Fair Trial – Personal Liberty – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner, claimed that the film’s release would vitiate the fairness of his trial and damage the impartiality of administration of justice; the court noted the heightened protection of life and liberty post the 44th Amendment (Paras 5, 8). E) Defamation – Prejudice to Reputation and Security – The petitioner alleged that the film, by portraying him as a criminal, defames him and may endanger his life; he filed an affidavit listing seven accused killed on bail and nine who survived murder attempts; the respondents argued the facts were in the public domain (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the public exhibition of the film 'Black Friday' based on the book about the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts would interfere with the fair trial of the petitioner (accused no. 44), constitute contempt of court, and defame him, thereby justifying suspension of its screening until the trial judgment.
Law Points
- Right to fair trial under Article 21
- freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
- reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
- contempt of court under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971
- defamation
- certification of films under Section 5B(1) of Cinematograph Act 1952
- balance between fair trial and artistic expression.
