Full Text
Translation output
/• v/ .
> HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C) No.869/2013 TEENA SHARMA Petitioner
Tiirougli: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.
> HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C) No.869/2013 TEENA SHARMA Petitioner
Tiirougli: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondent Tlirougli: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Adv. along with Ms. Avni Singh and Ms. Renu Gupta, Advs. for R-4 & 5.
Mr. Sumit Chandra, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG along with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs. for UOI. W.P.(C) No.1849/2013
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: In person.
Mr. Sumit Chandra, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG along with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs. for UOI. W.P.(C) No.1849/2013
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: In person.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION Respondent
Through: , Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG along with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs. for UOI.
Through: , Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG along with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
14.05.2013 The petitioner in WP(C) 869/2013 is a pro bono publico seeking direction to the Union of India through l^inistry of
Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film
2013:DHC:7677-DB u Certification to issue appropriate direction so that the film Race-2 is stopped immediately from its public exhibition in film theaters and also later on from its telecast on the television with Certificate U/A or even Certificate "A" in its present form unless requisite editing is made in the film. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the film contains display of obscene as well as double meaning dialogues. The provisions of Central Board of Film Certification
/, - under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') are clear in term that the film containing obscenity as well as double meaning dialogues will not be exhibited. In spite of the same, Race 2 is released.
As far as writ petition, viz., W.P.(C) 1849/2013 is concerned, it relates to the vulgar songs and obscenity in the film Dabang-II.
Having noticed the grievance of the petitioner, though earlier in WP(C) 869/2012 we directed the petitioner to make the representation to the Government in terms of Section 6 of the Act, there appears to be a little controversy whether the Government of
India has jurisdiction over the orders of the quasi-judicial Tribunals, viz.. Central Board of Film Certification. The issue of jurisdiction of the Government is left open as it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that still the
Government shall have jurisdiction in respect of the matters in issue.
For the present, we are of the considered view that both the films have already been exhibited. Race 2 was released on
25.1.2013 and Dabang 2 was released on 21.12.2012, that is, much prior to the petitioners have approached this Court. The
, J petitioners have also prayed for direction of this Court to frame the guidelines in this regard. In this context, our attention is drawn by
Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, learned ASG that the Government of India through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued Office
Memorandum dated 04.2.2013 constituting a Committee consisting of eight Members. The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
^ ' "i) Review the mandate and functioning of CBFC and recommend measures including statutory changes to enable CBFC to deal with contemporary requirements of certification and increased transparency/efficiency. Such issues, inter alia, may include: a) The process of certification under the Act and
Rules, including the mechanism followed by Examining and Revising Committees; b) Categories of certification, existing and proposed, under the Cinematograph
(Amendment) Bill, 2013; c) Requirement of special categories of certification for the purposes of broadcasting on television channels and radio stations. ii) To review the mandate and functioning of Film
Certification Appellate Tribuna (FCAT) in order to make it a more efficacious appellate body; f- iii) Examine the role of Central Government regarding sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition under
'A Entry 60, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
\ Constitution of India vis-a-vis Entry 33, List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; iv) To suggest more effective legal remedies and penal provisions in the Act, particularly with reference to making unlawful copies, camcording in cinema halls, interpolation/insertion of clips after certification and such similar issues; and v) Any other issue that the Committee may deem fit to deliberate upon."
It is also submitted that the Committee is expected to submit
1/ r /C- its report by the end of June, 2013 and the said recommendations will be considered by the Government of India and necessary orders could be passed. In our opinion, the interest of the petitioner can be subserved if we give liberty to the petitioners also to make necessary suggestions • to the Committee so that the said
Committee shall also include their suggestions in their recommendations.
In view of the above, instead of taking the task on us to framework the guidelines, we leave it on the Government of India to consider those suggestions/recommendations made by the
Committee and take necessary action on it.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
MAY 14, 2013 pmc CHIEF JjUSTICE JAYANT NATH, 3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
14.05.2013 The petitioner in WP(C) 869/2013 is a pro bono publico seeking direction to the Union of India through l^inistry of
Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film
2013:DHC:7677-DB u Certification to issue appropriate direction so that the film Race-2 is stopped immediately from its public exhibition in film theaters and also later on from its telecast on the television with Certificate U/A or even Certificate "A" in its present form unless requisite editing is made in the film. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the film contains display of obscene as well as double meaning dialogues. The provisions of Central Board of Film Certification
/, - under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') are clear in term that the film containing obscenity as well as double meaning dialogues will not be exhibited. In spite of the same, Race 2 is released.
As far as writ petition, viz., W.P.(C) 1849/2013 is concerned, it relates to the vulgar songs and obscenity in the film Dabang-II.
Having noticed the grievance of the petitioner, though earlier in WP(C) 869/2012 we directed the petitioner to make the representation to the Government in terms of Section 6 of the Act, there appears to be a little controversy whether the Government of
India has jurisdiction over the orders of the quasi-judicial Tribunals, viz.. Central Board of Film Certification. The issue of jurisdiction of the Government is left open as it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that still the
Government shall have jurisdiction in respect of the matters in issue.
For the present, we are of the considered view that both the films have already been exhibited. Race 2 was released on
25.1.2013 and Dabang 2 was released on 21.12.2012, that is, much prior to the petitioners have approached this Court. The
, J petitioners have also prayed for direction of this Court to frame the guidelines in this regard. In this context, our attention is drawn by
Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, learned ASG that the Government of India through Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued Office
Memorandum dated 04.2.2013 constituting a Committee consisting of eight Members. The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
^ ' "i) Review the mandate and functioning of CBFC and recommend measures including statutory changes to enable CBFC to deal with contemporary requirements of certification and increased transparency/efficiency. Such issues, inter alia, may include: a) The process of certification under the Act and
Rules, including the mechanism followed by Examining and Revising Committees; b) Categories of certification, existing and proposed, under the Cinematograph
(Amendment) Bill, 2013; c) Requirement of special categories of certification for the purposes of broadcasting on television channels and radio stations. ii) To review the mandate and functioning of Film
Certification Appellate Tribuna (FCAT) in order to make it a more efficacious appellate body; f- iii) Examine the role of Central Government regarding sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition under
'A Entry 60, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
\ Constitution of India vis-a-vis Entry 33, List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; iv) To suggest more effective legal remedies and penal provisions in the Act, particularly with reference to making unlawful copies, camcording in cinema halls, interpolation/insertion of clips after certification and such similar issues; and v) Any other issue that the Committee may deem fit to deliberate upon."
It is also submitted that the Committee is expected to submit
1/ r /C- its report by the end of June, 2013 and the said recommendations will be considered by the Government of India and necessary orders could be passed. In our opinion, the interest of the petitioner can be subserved if we give liberty to the petitioners also to make necessary suggestions • to the Committee so that the said
Committee shall also include their suggestions in their recommendations.
In view of the above, instead of taking the task on us to framework the guidelines, we leave it on the Government of India to consider those suggestions/recommendations made by the
Committee and take necessary action on it.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
MAY 14, 2013 pmc CHIEF JjUSTICE JAYANT NATH, 3.
JUDGMENT