Case Note & Summary
The first petitioner, a film production company, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which imposed multiple cuts on the film 'Udta Punjab', a work of fiction highlighting drug addiction in Punjab. The petitioners had applied for an 'A' certificate on 10 May 2016, with the film scheduled for release on 17 June 2016. After an initial examination, the CBFC's Chairperson referred the film to the Revising Committee, which examined it on 3 June 2016. The impugned decision, communicated on 8 June 2016, listed thirteen cuts including deletion of references to Punjab and its cities, excision of abusive words, and removal of political references. The petitioners argued that the cuts were unreasonable, violated Article 19(1)(a), and caused substantial financial loss given the advanced bookings and promotional expenditure. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability due to the availability of an appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The court overruled this objection, holding that the presence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, especially where fundamental rights are in issue. The court noted that larger questions touching the core of freedom of speech were involved and that a belated appellate decision would render the release deadline unfeasible. The judgment proceeded to examine the merits of the challenged cuts under constitutional and statutory norms, ultimately allowing the petition and directing the issuance of an 'A' certificate with only minimal modifications.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition when fundamental rights are involved. Held that since larger questions regarding freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) were raised, the petition was entertained despite existence of an appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Paras 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CBFC's decision to grant 'A with cuts' certificate for the film 'Udta Punjab' violates the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
Law Points
- Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression
- reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
- pre-censorship under Cinematograph Act
- 1952
- certification guidelines not exhaustive
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- alternative remedy not absolute bar
- artistic freedom
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 45
Writ Petition (L) No. 1529 of 2016
S. C. Dharmadhikari, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Kunal Mehta for petitioners; Mr. Advait M. Sethna, Mr. D. N. Mishra, Ms. Ruju Thakker, Ms. Richa Mishra for respondents
Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Bahl
The Central Board of Film Certification and Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the certification decision of the Central Board of Film Certification
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the decision imposing cuts and a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to issue an 'A' certificate without the listed cuts
Filing Reason
The CBFC imposed multiple cuts on the film 'Udta Punjab' which the petitioners argued violated their freedom of speech and caused substantial financial loss, and the appellate tribunal was unavailable before the scheduled release date
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
Whether the cuts imposed by the CBFC infringe the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appellate remedy was not efficacious because the Chairman of the tribunal was unavailable, and the film's release date was imminent; they also contended that the cuts violated Article 19(1)(a) and were based on subjective notions.
Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners should have exhausted the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the High Court.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioners have determined and decided the date of release of the film and that is 17 th June, 2016. They would suffer considerable loss and prejudice in the event the film is not released on that date.
since larger questions and going to the root of the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India are involved in this writ petition, it would be desirable to hear the writ petition on merits rather than to uphold the preliminary objection.
availability of an alternate equally efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a rule of discretion and prudence rather than a legal bar.
Procedural History
Application for certification filed on 10 May 2016; film examined on 18 May 2016 and referred to Revising Committee by Chairperson; Revising Committee examined film on 3 June 2016; impugned decision dated 6 June 2016 communicated on 8 June 2016; writ petition filed and moved on 8 June 2016; court heard preliminary objection on maintainability on 9 June 2016 and decided to hear on merits; final hearing held on 13 June 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), Article 226
- Cinematograph Act, 1952: Section 4, Section 5A, Section 5B, Section 5C, Section 5D
- Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983:
- Companies Act, 1956:
