INTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA + ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION WoT PETETION (CIVIL) No. oF 2017 (UNDER ARTICLE 52 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (OVTTH A PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) IN THE MATTER OF: Mr, AMOL PALEKAR PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RESPONDENTS. wrt LANO, oF 2017 ‘An application for stay with Afidavit In suppor thereof PAPER BOOK ‘VOLUME -1 (Ato 169) (SYNOPSIS, LIST OF DATES, WRIT PETITION, "ANNEXURE P-L AND P-2) (FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE) ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: GAUTAM NARAYAN,ome RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Fees __ a) TELM] Die of record of proceedingsSno. INDEX VOLUME -1(A to 169) PARTICULARS: PRGE NO. sting Proforma Ato AL ‘Synopsis and List of dates B-K Wie Petition with affidavit in support. 1-81 ‘Appendos 82-96 “he Cenatograph ft, 1952 ‘The Cale Televsions Nebors (Reguation Ac, 1585 ‘Tue Gnamataganh (Crsrsi) Res, 1988 ‘The enstgraph (Cert) ls, 1963 he Bombay Poe Act 1951 | ‘Annexure Pi ‘ 97-108 ‘True copy of thelist of movies denied catication. Annexure P:2 110-169 “True Copy of the final minutes of the 136” ‘and 139 Board meeting held by the Central Board of Film Certication ‘VOLUME 11 (170-411)ood PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING secTION = “The case pertains to (Please tok / check the correct box): [D Central Act: The Cinematograph Act, 1952 {Section 2, 3(2),4(2)H, 5(4) & (2) and 5A) & 5-B Oi Central Rule: (Title) NA Rule No(s) NA Cistate act rie): WA section NA (CiState Rule: (Tide) _ NA Rute No (s) (7 tmpugned interim Order: (Date) Climpugned Final Order/Decree: NA, Oiitigh Court: (Name) N. A. Clames of sudges: NA Cribunavautorty: Name) NA, 1. Nature of Matter: EFGvil 0. criminal 2. (a) Petitioner: Mr. Amol Palekar (b)e-malll ID: NA, (©) Moblle phone number_ NA 3. (2) Respondent No.1: Union of Inca (ema 10 NA (©) Mobile phone number Na 4, (@)Maln/eategory classification () Sub Gassicaton:5. Not tobe Hated before _ WA 6. Similar / Pending Matter: _NA___ 7. Gtiminal Mates: NA (@) Whether accused cont has surendered] Yes (No (b) FIR No.N.A Date: NA (© Poilee tation: NA (d) Sentence Awarded: NAL (@) Sentence Undergone:. NA 8. Land Acquistion Matters: (2) Date of Section 4 Notification | NAL (b) Date of Section 6 Notification __N.A____ (©) Date of Section 17 Notification _NWA 9. Tax Matters Sate the taxeffects__ NA 10. Specal Category (fist Petitone/appeant ony) {Senior cizen >65 years] SCIST ZI Woman/chits isabled(ILegal aid Case On custody 11. Vehicle Number (incase of Motor Acident Claim matters) 12, Decided cases wth station NA. Date: 06.03.2017 ‘Gautam Narayan ‘Advocate for the Petitioner Code No. 1726 -narayan01@gmail.com Ph: 9811 411 735or ‘SYNOPSIS ‘The present Wit Petition Is being filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of The CCnematngraph Act, 1952 and The Cinematograph Rules, 1983. ‘The Petitioner has faced several hurdes in obtaining certification for his fims such as Aakriet, Daayara end Thaang( Quest. 1 Is submited that In the present Pettion the Petitioner raises substantial questions of law of public importance which would require this Hon'ble Court to interpret the provisions ofthe 1952, ‘Act and the 1983 Rules hereinunder. However, in KA; Abbas v Union of Inca & Anr 1970 SCC 780 the constitutional valdty of the provisions of Part It of the Act, together with the Cnematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 was challenged only an the graund that they violated the provisions of Atcle 19(3)() ofthe Constitution. Tt Is further submitted that the Petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of Part I ofthe Act and certain provisions ofthe Rules on the ground that they vilate the provisions of Article 14 ‘ofthe COI. Its submitted that this Hon'ble Court did nat consider the constitutional validity of the sald Partin light of Article 14 hile deciding the questions which rose before itn (1970) 2.50C 780,c ‘The Petitioner through the present Petition is challenging the catifcation of fms by the Board constituted under the Act, asthe same lacks provisions for essential qualication of the Members ‘constituting the Board. Its submitted afore said Act does not specify any qualifications for the members of the Board and or the Examining Committe, or 2 Revising Committee or even the Flim Certification Appellate ‘Tribunal (FACT), hence the subjective, eratc interpretation of ‘overbroad, imprecise Guidelines In the hands of unqualified ‘members is almost guaranteed which in Rsel is very unfair and Unreasonable restriction on the filmmakers freedom of speech, ‘The absence ofthe prescribed quafcaion for the members to be ‘appointed on board makes the decision making. In the light of major developments in the society, which did nat manifest themselves and were consequently not taken into ‘account, when the judgment in abbas (Supra) was delivered. Since Abbas, there have been introduction of new Ideas, new technologies and developments in diferent fields of Ife, ‘This Hontle Court also did not have occasion to adress the Issue Of right of @ viewer to access a documentary in the form as its ‘creator had intended. The Act when enacted In 1952 and when interpreted in Abbas in 1970 could not have conceived of the Present day scenario wherein moder technology makesD dissemination of Information avaiable in real time through vatety of media, many of which ate either not regulsted or if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship, Law, if i has to satisfy human needs and to meet the problems of Ife, must adapt Itself to cope with new situations. The aforesaid right can only be ‘curtailed in accordance with Article 19(2) viz by a law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the soveregnty and integrity of India, the security ofthe State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or moray oF in relation to contempt of court, defemation or incitement of offence. Therefore, It Is naw necessary to take into consideration whether the provisions relating to pie-censorship are constitutional in the contemporary times. Therefore the present Wit Petition, LIST OF DATES 21* March, 1952 ‘The Cinematograph Act, 1952 was brought Into, force to make provision for the certification of cihematograph films for exhibition ‘and for regulating exhibitons by means of cineimatographs. ‘The Pettoner is challenging the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph(Cetiication) Rules, 1983 which in turn imposes pre-censorship on the freedom of speech and expression of the artistes as well as the ‘audience. The Pettoner is parcularly aggrieved by the | provisions of Sections 2, 3(4), (a), $(1) 8 (2) and 5-A() and 5-8 of the aforementioned Act ‘The Pettoner is aggrieved by the . aforementioned provisions granting | the power of ordering cuts, deletions, alterations ina flm along with the abuse of power wile exercising the powers given by the seid Act and Rules while certifying | andjor denying cetiication to any applicant fm, 11" october, 1958, ‘The Clnematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 was notified. | 24 September, 1970 KA. Abbas v. Union of India And Ane (197O}2 SOC 780 (“Abbas I \whereln this Hon’ble Court upheléF the constitutional vailty of the provisions impugned In the present Petition. The said judgment did not notice an earlier six Judge Bench Ruling in Brf Bhushan & Ann. v ‘State of Detty (3950 SCR 605) vinere it was held that any kind of prior scrutiny of expression is unconstitutional under the Constitution of India. 1978, ‘The Press Councll Act 1978, was enacted for the purpose of I preserving the freedom ofthe Press and of marinating and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India 14° November, 1979 ‘The Press Cpundl of India vide ‘powers conferted upon it under the } Press Council of India Ac, 1978 made regulations refered to 2s The Press CouneikProcedtre for Inquiry) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006, oP May, 1983 ‘The Respondent No.l has made6 December 1991, 29° September, 1994 25° March, 1995 2003 G ‘The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 which replaced the 1958 Rules, Guidelines issued bythe Respondent No. 1 vide $.0.836(6) published In the Gazette of India, xtra, PT, Sec. 30). “The Respondent No made Rules under powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 22 of the Cable Television Cable. Television Nebiorks Rules, 1994 The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 was enacted by the Parliament to regulate the ‘operation of cable television networks in the country and for matters connected therewith oF Incidental thereto. The Petitioner, as well as the audience at large, have been deprived of the opportunity of viewing hundreds of cinematograph29" May, 2008 23 February, 2015 H fms in tele original form, Some such films are Kissa Kursi Ka 1977), Howayein (2003), the documentary No Fire Zone: The salng Fes of Sif Lanka amongst many others, The aforesaid fms ‘and numerous others have not been allowed to be released for public consumption. Numerous ims could not be seen in is orginal {form as an artistic expression of the irector on account of the ‘aterations which are routinely Gemanded by the Board which ‘amounts to an abuse of power by the Board. [A programme Code was prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 ‘The 138” and 139" board meeting fof the central board of lm certification was held at hotel sun- sand, MumbalI 26" Apel, 2016 ‘The Committee Chaired by Shri yan Bp ie 9 ot veormedng bond sued pecs tr eto fs wy id cota Sod oe exten ao 1 6 stad Ot ae te dein red He Hon coat ka in Uo nar i S70 roe cto nc eco is tn ane to ae ele shoe ones amily id kof gts an poe — Te eon way tg we wh he got aco ia cee oe crersuge he we weve, ky man woo te isn oy Internet and cinematographic films6 February, 2017 3 must have a sound basis and there wasnt ary constitutional challenge In Abbas on basis of an Infngement of Atle 14, Taking into consideration the development In the jarepeadence relating to pre censorship and gven the ration: ‘ide Inglcation of the important issue of fw affecting the rights of firm-makersiproducers 2 well as consumers/iewers of feature fis and documentaries, is submited that this Honible Court is. the aopropriate authorty which alone can adjudicate the issues raed in the present Patton and redress the pievances ofthe Pettioner. The High Cout of Judicature at Bombay at Berch Aurangabad in a recent case for the certification of fir ted Joly LLb the High Court went onto rect certain cuts which ‘were not considered necessary bythe Board, 05.03.2017 Hence the present Wirt Petition,IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ‘ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _OF 2017 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) INTHE MATTER OF: Me. Amal Palekar Petitoner Adit; 72 yes ‘Occupation: FILM MAKER Currently residing at: PRABHAT ROAD, PUNE 411004 Versus 1, Union of India Respondent No. 1 “Through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Having ts office at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi ~ 1:0001 2. The Central Board of Fim Cetfeation Respondent No. 2 | Board established under the provisions of the Cnematograph Act, 1952. ‘Through Chairperson, Haring ts office at Sart Bhavan, SLE, Wakkeshwar Road, ‘Mumbai 400 006. To HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS HONBLE COMPANION JUSTICES (OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA‘THE HUMBLE PETITION OF “THE PETITIONER ABOVENMAED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1, The Petitioner above named is constrained to invoke the writ Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in order to safeguard and protect his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, The Petitioner is challenging the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. (hereinafter referred to as “Act’) and the Cinematograph (Cetiication) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "1983 Rules”) which in turn imposes pre-censorship on the freedom of speech and expression of the artistes 2s well as the audience. The Petitioner is particularly aggrieved by the provisions of Sections 2, (1), 42Xi), 5(1) & (2) and S-A(1) and 5-8 of3 the aforementioned Ac. The Petoner is aogrleved by the aforementioned provisions granting the power of ordering cuts, deletions, aeration in a fm along with the abuse of power while exercing the powers given by the said Act and Rules while certfyng andlor denying certficaton to any applicant fm. It is most respectfully submitted that the present Petition ralses substantial questions of law of public Importance, hich require interpretation of provisions of the Act and the 1983 Rules. It is sybmitted that this Hon'ble Court In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v ‘Cricket Association of Bengal Case (1995) 2 SCC 161 held thatthe tens have a right to know and the right to recelve information under Arte 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India as upheld by. It is this right to know and right to receive information under Articles 19 and 21 ofthe Constitution thatthe Petitioner seeks to enforce by way of the present Wit Peon. However, owing to the ‘operation and application of the impugned provisions, the Petitioner, as well as the audience at large, have been deprived of the opportunity of viewing hundreds of cinematograph fms in thelr crginl form. Some such fms are Kissa Kurs! Ka (1977), Howayein (2003), theom 4 ooumentary No Fre Zone : The King Fees of St Lanka amongst many others. The aforesaid fms and numercus thers have not baen allowed to be released for public consumption. 1s subtted that a Five-Judges Bench ofthis Honourable Cour in the mater of KA, Abbas v. Union of Indi, (197032 SCC 790 (herelnaRer refered to as “Abbas has already considered the constutlonal validty of certain provisions which are impugned herein. The Decision in Ka. -Abbes has nok noticed an eater sx Judge Bench Ruling In Brij Bhushan & Anr. v State of Delhi (3950 SCR 605) Where 1 was held that any Kind of prior scrutiny of epression Is uncorsttuonal under the Constution of Inda, The creumstances under which KA Aboas was decided were unike the crcumstances of today. The ‘Gnematogrepn Act came Ino force In 1952. The Abtes decsion was rendered in 1970, At his time television was arly present Ince, UNESCO had funded the Intestin of television in India in 1959 and up to 1972, there used to be one show of one hour aed twice week ony in Dei Doordarshan was launched before the Asian Games in 1982. Private television broadcasters the Zee and Star started ‘emerging only in the 90s. At the time the Abbas decison‘was rendered, television was not an influential medium of mass communication at all. Only cinematographic films in ‘theaters could be considered influential media of mass communication, Now that the television industry has grav and with the greater access to Internet, It cannot be sald that nemategraphic flims are the most Influential, Any discrimination between the regulation of TV, Internet and cinematographic fims must have a sound basis and there ‘wasnt any constitutional challenge in Abbas on basis of an Infingement of Artie 14, Taking into consideration the evelopment in the jurisprudence relating to pre-censorship, ‘and given the natlon-wie implication of the important issue (flaw affecting the rights of fim-makers/producers as well 2s consumers/vlewers of feature fims and documentaries, it |s submitted that this Hon'ble Court Is the appropriate ‘authority which alone can adjudicate the issues raised in the present Petition and redress the arievances ofthe Pettoner PARTIES 4.The Petitioner is a ctzen of India and an accaimed actor, film-maker. The Pettioner has recelved several national and International awards in the fields of performing as well as, visual arts in his creative journey of last five decades. While ‘obtaining the certification for his fms tke Aakrie, Daayarage ‘and ThaangiQuest, the Petitoner had to challenge the decisions of the Certication Board and had to struggle ‘against ts unreasonable restrictions, Greet emphasis has been, placed by the Petitioner onthe violation of his fundamental rlghts, therefore, prejudice need not be proved in cases where breach of fundamental right is claimed. Its 2a sattled position of law that ifthe provisions ofa law which have been impugned in the pettion, are consttutonal, then the person affected need not show any further prejucoe. '5.The Respondent No, 1, is the Union of India through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Respondent No. 2 isthe Cental Board of Fim Certication {hereinafter referred to as the “Board’] which Is a content certifying statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the 1952 Act for the purpose of certifying fis for public exibition. The Respondent No. 2 functions under the Respondent No. 1. All the aforementioned Respondents are ‘State’ within the meaning accorded to the term by Artide 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, all the aforesaid Respondents are subject to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hone (Court under Article 32 ofthe Constitution.6a 62 63 FACTS 6.The Respondent No. 2 functions and discharges duties in ‘accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the 1983 Rules, and the Guidelines issued under Section $8 of the aforesaid Act. The relevant facts and legal provsions viich have led to the institution of the present Petition are as follows ‘The Cinematoaraph Act 1952 on 21.3.1952, the Cinematograph Act 1952 (Act 37 of 1952 vas enacted and brought into force. The preamble of the 1952 Act deserbes it as YAJn Act to make provision for the ‘ertfcation of cinematograph fins for exhibition and for ‘regulating exhlaitions by means of cinematograph. ‘Section 2(c) ofthe aforesaid Act defines *cinematograph” to include *..any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. Further, Section 2 (6d) defines “wim to mean cinematogragh film. The aforesaé Act does not provide for a distinct definition for documentaries’. It is submited that Part TLof the aforesaid Act is ented ‘Cetficato of Fs for Publication’. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides for establishment of the Respondent No. 2 Board. However it does not prescribe any ‘qualifications that a person must obtaln to be appointed as @64 member or Chairman of the aforesald Board. Section 3(1) ‘reads as under: (2) For the purpose of sanctioning films for public ‘exhibition, the Central Government may, by notification In the Official Gazette, constitute @ Board to be called the Board of Film Certication which shall consist of a CChairman and not less than twelve and not more than twenty-five other members appointed by the Central Government. It ls most pertinent to note that even the Rules made under the Act do not provide’ for any qualifications to bbecome @ member or Chairman of the Board Section 4 of the aforesaid Act provides for examination of fms which reads 2s under: “4, Examination of Fms.~ (1) Any person desting ‘to exhibit any film shall in the. prescrived manner make an application to the Board for 3 certicate In respect thereof, and the Board may, after examining or having the film ‘examined In the prescribed manner, = (Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibion: [Provided that, having regard. to any material In the film, ifthe Board is of the ‘opinion that It Is necessary to caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be alowed to s2e such 2 film should be consiered by the parents or guardian of such child the Board ‘may sanction the flm for unrestricted public fetibition with an endorsement to that eect of] (@ Sanction the fim for public exhibition restricted to adits, or(jee) Sanction the flm for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or ‘any class of persons, having regard to the nature, content and theme of the fm; or (iil) Direct the applicant to carry out such ‘excisions or modifications in the film as it things necessary before sanctioning the film for public ‘exhibition under any of the foregoing clauses; or (v) Refuse to sanction the flm for public exhibition (2) _No-ection under the proviso to cause (i), cause (i), cause (ila), clause (ll) of cause (W) of subsection (1) shall be taken by the Board except ater giving en ‘opportunity to the applicant for representing his views in the matter.” [Emphasis Supplied) It sto be noted that the afore stated Section 4(1)) 2s it reads today was substituted by Act 49 of 1981, SA (wef, 1-6-1983), The original Act No. XOO(VIT of 1952 titled The Clnematograph Act, 1952 didnot have: this provision of empowering the Board to direct ‘utsfalterations. The Petitoner submits that sub- clause (il) of Section 4(1) shall be quashed as It ‘amounts to unreasonable restriction on the freedom (Of expression of the fim-makers and for other reasons specified hereinbelow. |65 66 10 ‘Section SCL) of the aforesaid Act provides for establshment of Advisory Panels at regional centers for enabling the Respondent No, 2 to efficiently discharge Its functions under the aforesaid Act, however it does not specify any cualficatons or definitive citeda for its members appointment other than ‘qualified In the opinion of the Central Government to judge the effect of flms on the publ, Siilary Section 5(2) which provides for appointment of reglonal ofcers, does not specfy any qualifications or definiive crea for Rs_members! 2ppdintmet Section 5-4 provides for certification of fms as is reproduced hereunder ~ 5A, Certification of fms (1) If, after examining 2 film or raving the fm examined in the prescribed ‘manner, the Board considers that ~ (a) the fm is suteble for unrestricted public exhibition, or, 2s the case may he, for uneestected publ exhiion wlth a9 lendorsement ofthe nature mentioned In the provision to clause () of sub-section (4) of section 4, It shall grant to the person applying fora certificate in respect (of the flm a "U" certificate or, as the case may be, 2 “UAT cetiicate; oF (b) the flim isnot suitable for unrestricted pubic exhibition, but Issuable for public exhibition restricted to adults of, as the case may be, 's suitable for public exibition restricted to members of any profession or any dass of persons, it shall grant ‘tp the person applying for a certificate In respect of the film 2 "A" certificate or, as the case may be , an "5" certificate, ‘And cause the film to be so marked inthe prescribed manner.one 67 ee ‘Thus the four categories under which the films can be cetied as provided by the Section 5A(1) are U, UA, A, and S. The Peitioner submits that the present categories are Inadequate to inform the audience about the viewing ‘material and that more categories need to be extended to Include diverse content possioly involving nucity, grephic violence, etc, Once the categories are extended, the fm- ‘makers will have carity as to which category should they apply for, and thereby unwanted content will not find its way Into fms certified for rating ‘Section 5:8 provides for principles for guidance In certifying films. The relevant part of Section 5-B Is reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity and convenlence = "5B. Principles for guidance in certifying fms (2) A film shall not be certified for public exon I, In the opinion of the autnonty competent to ‘grant certificate, the film or any part of it is ‘against the interests of the sovereignty and Integrity of India, the secunty of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of Court or is lkely to ince the commission of any offence. (Subject to the provisions contained in sub- section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as t may tink ft setting out the Principles which shall guide the authority ‘competent to grant certicates under this Act.”68 12 Tris dear that Sub-clause (1) of Section 5-8 which provides for guidance for certifying fms, Is reiteration of cause (2) of tice 19 of the Constinton. Subrclause (2) of Section 58 enables the Central Government to state the principles to ‘guide the censoring authority, by issuing directions ‘An Appellate THbunal is constitutes under Section S-0(1). ‘The aforesaid Tribunal consisting of @ Chaltman and not more than four ather members to be appolnted by the Central Government isto be stated In Delh as provided in ‘the Sub-clause (3) and (2). Sub-ciause (4) thereof provides that @ person shall not be quale for appointment as the CChaleman of the Tribunal unless he is retired Judge of a High ‘Court ors a person who is qualified to be @ Judge ofa High Court. Thus, In so fer as the chairman of the Tribunal is concerned, clear qualifications have been prescribed. However, in so far as the remaining members of the Tilounal are concerned, the sub-clause (5) provides tha, "the Central Government may appoint such persons who, in Its opinion, are qualifed to judge the effect of fms on the public, to be members of the Tribunal.” It is pertinent to note thet other than this vaguely worded qualification, the ‘aforesaid Act does not specty any qualifications of members ether of the Appellate Tribunal or of the Board as13 constituted respectively under Section 50(5) oF Section 3 thereof “Tis isthe general scheme of the Act which is relevant for the present discussion. Rules made in 1958 and amended in 1983 under ‘the aforesald Act 7.The Respondent No. 1 wide its GSR. 945, dated 7" October 1958 has made the Ginematographi (Censorship) Rules, 1958. 7.4, The sald 1958 Rules specty no guidelines while providing cetifcatin forthe applicant film, and are also silent on the elgbilty citera or qualifications to be appointed as. oe members ofthe Board othe Tribunal 7.2. The sald Rules distinguished 2 ‘documentary’ from a YYeature flim’ which 1s apparent from the two Rules Le. Rule 22(4) which treated newsreel and documentary ete separately from a feature fm, and Rule 23(2) which stipulated a separate examining commits for cetying documentaries, an educational fm etc. 7.3. Rule 23(3)(c) provides for demanding alterations ina fm however the wording of the same is moderate than the impugned provisions.14 (on 915.1983, the Respondent No. 1 vide ts GS.R. 281(€), Gated May 9, 1983 has made the Cinematogreph (Certification) Rules, 1983 which replaced the seid 1958 Rules. 8:1, Rule 3 of the sid 1983 Rules doesnot spey any qualification ofthe members ofthe Board tobe fred there under. 8.2, Rule 7 ofthe soi 1983 Rules species the formation of an advisory pane! without spetied any defntive itera for ts members’ appointments, Sub-clause 3) of the sal Rule states that “he Central Government tray, after consutaion with the Board, appoint any person wom i thinks ft to be a member of an achisory pane.” 8.3, Rule 2212) of the seid 1983 Rules provides for formation of an Examining Commitee to examine the applicant’ fim, However, no qualifications of members of the said Committee are specified. 84, Rule 24 ofthe sid 1983 Rules provides for formation of a Revising Commitee to re-examine the applicants fim ich was eater examined by the Bxamining Committe, Agaln, no qualifications of members ofthe sald Committee are specified ints sub-clause (2).on 15 85, Its to be noted that no pindpes of guidance while recramining the fm are specfed forthe Revising Commitee In Bulg 24 and aso in Bule 32 while re- ‘evamining the certified fms. 8.6 Rule. 29 ofthe sald 1983 Rules reerates the period of valcy of a certificate given fora fim to be 10 years ftom the dete on which the same is granted 2s is specie in Section SA(3 ofthe afore stoted Act. The apptcation for renewal of the certificate after ts ciation is suppose to be treated “as fit were an ‘ign applcation. It is pertinent to note thet the ‘lexty and adaplaity to the changing times in every decade was expressed trough and provided for in this provision because of which the validity was not kept in perpetuity. Thus Incase 2 fim was gen an A" cetfeate on the frst occasion, the possi for the applicant to apply for and to reoshe a “UY certieate after 10 years commensurate with the hanging soci realty, was assured by the afore sated Act 8.7 No qualifications. of members of an. Examining Committe to be formed as per Rule 33() ofthe sald 1983 Rules are specieoa. 16 £88 No qualifications of members ofthe Appllte Tibunal to be formed as per Rule 4346) ofthe said 1983 Rules ae spectied. ‘Guidelines for certification of films In accordance with the provisions of Sexton $:8(2) of the aforesaid Ac, the Cental Goverment has sued ‘guidlines wich are avelale on the offil website ofthe Respondent No. 2 CBFC at : Snda.oovindhtml/un gel. ‘The objectives as ald down in the Clause & of the 1991 Guideines read asunder: {The medium of fm remains responsible and sensitive tothe values and standards of society; b, _Artsic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed © Certifications responsive to soil change; The medium of fim provides clean and heliny entertainment; As faras possible the fl is of aesthetic value and cinematically fa good standard. “The Petitioner submits that objectives ‘a,c’ and e’sufer from vagueness, overbroadness and cause ambiguity in92 17 interpretation, end those ought to be quashed. Its the fllm makers’ prerogative to make a film ‘of aesthetic value’ and of ‘cinematcally good standard’. When what constitutes ‘yalues and standards of socety’Is In tse not definitive at civen any time, empowering the Board to hold the mora compass leads to subjective, arbitrary end erroneous decisions during the certification process. TEs pertinent to note that all the 19 guidelines specified in Clause 2 thereof are vague and overbroad in nature having no objective parameter and leaving immense scope for Individval discretion, subjective analysis, arbitrariness and “nepotism. Phrases such as pointless or avoidable scenes of Violence, cruety, horror, 'soenes which have the effect of Justilying or glortying inking’, "scenes involving ridicule of physical and mentally handicapped persons’, “human sensilitias are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity oF depravity, among others, are abstract, unclear, Imprecse ‘and ambiguous. Ultimately the fate ofthe scenejfim hangs (0n an individual member's interpretation and discretion. This, ‘amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the fim-maker's (such as Petitoners’) freedom of speech and expression under Art 19(1)(). As @ matter of llustration, itis submited that if the purpose of film isto create awareness about93 10. 18 chil labour, unless the abusive practices against and cruelty to children are depicted, the firm wil be ineffective, In such ‘station, the Board can demand cuts of various scenes from the sad fim pointing at the guideline stating "showing children 25 being subjected to any form of child abuse is allowed. Such abstract guidelines aught to lead to rampant incoherent and errtic decisions. ‘since the afore said Act does nat specty any qualfiations for the ‘members of the Board and or the Examining Committee, or @ Revising Committee or even the Fim Certification Appellate Trbunal (FACT), the subjective, erratic interpretation of overbroad, imprecise Guidelines In the hands of unqualified members 1s almost quaranteed ‘whlch in ise s very unfair and unreasonable restriction on the fimmakers'freesiom of speech. Provisions of scrutiny/certfication of ant im Siar provisions of certification and/or scrutiny of the content of the artistic material such as play script, musle & dance performance etc and also consittng @ Board were Introduced in the State of Maharashtra vide Section ‘2LueXlll of the Bombay Polke Act, 1954, The aforesaid Board constituted under the provisions of the sid Act intern. ra 19 ala conducts pre-censorhip of plas. In the aforesaid section under the said Act, qualifications are prescribed in relation to who canbe appointed as a member ofthe Board there under, Such quaifleatons are absent from the provisions ofthe aforesaid Act which Is the subject mater of this Ptton. ‘As a matter of complete dclsure, 1's submited thatthe Petioner along wih anther genteman has challenged the constutonal vakty of Secton 33(va)(l) and the ries framed there under before the Honourable Bombay High out. “The television programmes are covered by the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 with the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 enacted by the Patlament on 25.3.1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “cable TV Act’). ‘Section 2(a) of the sald Act defines the term programme 25, follows: (@) programme means any television broadcast and Indydes ~ (exibition of films, features, dramas, advertisements and serials through video cassette recorders or video cassette players; (any audio or visual or audiowisual ve performance or presentation, and the expressionone 20 ‘programming service’ shall be construed ‘2ecordingly.” 12.2 Further, Section § of the sald Act provides that no person shall transmit or re-ransmit through a cable service any progrémme unless such programme is in conformity withthe prescribed programme code. The programme code has aso been preseibed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1996. 123 Chapter V of the said Act, specticlly Section 19 and_20, embody provisions that empower the authorized officer to Prohibit trensmission of certain programmes in public Interest, and the Central Government to prohibit operation (of cable television network "in public Interest” 124 It Is pertinent to note that no provision of the sald Act requires the content ofthe artistic mateial Inthe form of ‘ther script, unedited footage sho, complete fal progrom or any other format ofthe same to be subjected to sertiny Prior to the broadcast/telecestring or presentation of the sald programme to the audience, Thus, the: content created/prediced for the television is without any pre- censorship. 43, The Respondent No. 1 has uploaded on its webste (toimibnicinteReadData documents) ndBa 132 21 ‘Self Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector (Crate 2008). “These Guidelines were sued "to inroxuce greater spectly and deta ith 2 ew to fotate st requton by the brotccasing industy and mize scope fer subjectve. decion by regubtory autores or the broadcasting service providers. The basic underying princes of these Guidelines i that the responsibly of comping wt te provisos ofthe Creation Rules vests with te SP" ‘The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which Is representative body of non-news and current affairs TV channels, has in June 2011 set up a Broadcasting Content Complaints Councl (BCCC) to examine the complaints about television programmes. IBF also framed. Self-Reguatory Content Certification Code which seeks to guide the Broadcasting Service Provider (BSP) to offer content thet conform to the ‘Programme Code’ prescribed under the above mentioned Cable Television Networks (Regulation) ‘Act, 1995 and Rules framed there under. New Broadcasters Association (NBA) a representative body ‘of news and current affairs channels has set up an independent body ‘News Broadcasting Standards Authority133 14. 144 15, 22 (85Ay’ to consider content related complaints against or in respect of ens broedcasters, Thelr News Broadcasting Standards Regulations Code Is In conformity with the said 1995 Act. It's Further added that such provisions whether statutory oF seltreguatory directives, are devoid of any pre-censorship of content, The Press Counc Act, 1978, and the ress Cound ‘@rocedure for Inui) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 and norms of Journalistic Conduct were passed "to etabsh @ ‘Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the ress and of maintaining and inorovng the standards of newspapers and nes agencies in Indl.” Xt ls to be noted that the seid Regulations specty 8 ‘ievance redresal_ mechanism by vitue of which 2 complainant may flat a scrutiny against a speci news report etx vihich was akeady published. However, no provision of the said Act or Regulations prescribe pre- censorship of content inthe form of news report or any ‘ther journalistic publication. ‘The Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended on 22" December 2008 and The Information Technology Act. 200816. 16.4. 23 was passed to regulate transactions carried out by means of tectronic date interchange and other means of electronic communication etc. Even under this Act, the content uptoaded on for oF used to eommuricate with the audience via internet is not required to be cetiied prior to Its exhibition or presentation, thus is san pre-censrship. Facts distinguishina from those considered in ‘KA, Abbas v. Union of India 'As memoned hereinabove, it must be ponte out thatthe onstutonal vay of Par I ofthe aforesaid Act has been upheld by a Five-Judge Barch of this Honble Court in KA. Abbas v. Union of India reported in (1970) 2 SCC 780, However, In Abbas (Sure) the cnstkutinal vat ofthe provisions of Part I of the Act, together with the CGnematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 was challenged only on the ground that they violated the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 1 is submited that subsequent to the Judgment ofthis Hore Cour n Abbas, the provisions of Chapter I of the Act have been substantaly amended In two respects iter a: (0 Section 4(1\( of the Act has been Introduced by Section 4of Act 49 of 196.on 162 163 24 (a) Futher, te Gnematagraph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 ave been substited by the aorementoned Rules of 1983; AND (a). 1901, new gudeines were issued inorder to gue the process of entiation. “Therefore, ts most humbly submited thatthe judgment in ‘Abbas (Supra) wil not bind tis Hole Court whl testing te consttonal val of the provisions impugned herein. 1s further sibmited thatthe Petitioner is chalenging the constutonaty of Prt It ofthe Act end cetin provisions ofthe Rules onthe ground that they vioat the provson of Atle 14 of the Constitution, Tt Is submited that this Hon'ble court cd nat eonsder the constitutional vay of the aforesaid Part n ght of Arle 14 while deciding the ‘questions which arose before it in Abbas (Supra). “Therefore to that extent as wel the sald Judgment wil have aver limited value asa precedent. Te is futher submited that post the decison of this Honourable Court in Abbas, there has been a substantial development of jursprdence in réaton tothe scope and ambit of the fundamental ight quarenteed under Ate 15) as wel a the reasonable restctons under Article 19(2). Therefore, the provisions of Chapter II are now164 165 25 required to be tested against the fundamental rights as ‘uarenteed in the Constitution and Interpreted by this Honourable Court as well as Honourable High Court. 1 Is submited thet, assuming without admitting In any manner whatsoever, the decison of this Hon'ble Court in ‘Abbas (Supra) willbe binding, this Hon'ble Court reconsider the law leld down inthe sald judgment, and take @ contrary View In light of the enormously changed social realty and the compelling public interest mentioned hereln belo. It is submited that certain new aspects have naw come to light, as elaborated herein below and It has now become essential to interpret and consider the provisions of the 1952 ‘Act and the 1983 Rules in the light ofthese developments, which did not manifest themselves and were consequently net taken Into account, wien the judgment in Abbas (Supra) was delivered. Since Abas there have been introduction of new ideas, new technologies and developments in ciferent fields of lf, Law, ft has to satisfy human needs and. to meet the problems of life, must adapt itself to cope with neve situations, Therefore, It Is now necessary to take into consideration whether the provisions relating to. pre censorship are consttutonaln the contemporary times.one 26 166 I's submitted thet with the development ofthe society, the ‘expansion of literacy and the progress of technology, the assumptions or basis of Abbas (Supra) has been rendered inapplicable or fundamentally altered, This Hon'ble Court in “Abbas (Supra) also id not have occasion to address the issue of right of @ viewer to access a documentary in the form as Its creator had Intended. The Act when enacted in 1952 and when interpreted in Abbas in 1970 could not have concelved of the present day scenario wherein modern technology makes dissemination of information avaiable in real time through a variety of media, many of which are ether not regulated or if regulated, not subjected to pre- censorship. 167 IIs submitted, futher, that since the decision of this Hon'ble Cour in Abbas (Supra), the power of certfction 2s 1 meane of pre-censorship has been subjected to large scale abuse oning to ambiguity and lack of clear guidelines of how. the power Is to be exercised. An indicate and nan ‘exhaustive Ist of flms that have been denied certification or had ther certification withheld for long duration subject to ‘modifications proposed by the Respondent No. 2 Is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 (Page 97 to 109). It Is submited that the examples stated therein clearly27 demonstrate the extent to which the power has been misused, espedally for safeguarding or furthering poitical Interests, It ls submited that these aspects nether arose ‘or were addressed by this Hobe Court in Abbas (supra). 169 The Decision In KA. Abbas has not noticed an earer six Judge Bench Ruling in Brif Bhushan & Anr. v State of el (1950 SCR 605) were it was held that any Kind of prior scrutiny of expression ts unconstitutional under the Constitution of Inca. Dissimilar treatment given to Documentaries 17, Te ts submitted, further, that documentaries, which necessary depict real fe events or narrate details of any event etc based on fects that are inherently incapable of being precensored, are nonetholess subject to @ greater arbitrariness and refusal / withholding of cerication mostiy to propagate the State sanctioned narrative of the seid event, or to suppress public knowledge of facts uncomfortable to the State, or for cther ukerlor movies. “Though an Indian Citizen has a fundamental right to know among ther things, the socio-economicpaltcal and oe cultural realty as the prevailing trth and aso aiflering views on any Issue, and the documentary-maker as an artist has her artiste freedom, the right to free speech and| | | 28 ‘expression by means of documentaries has been and is being subjected to censorial Intervention leading to ‘eurtallment of those sights. An indicative but non-exhaustive Ist ofthe same is set out belon: ‘Waves of Revolution (1975) was refused certification uring the Emergency, but was issued a "U' cetfcate Immediately after the Emergency ended. b. Prisoners of Conscience (3978) had 5 certification withheld pending deletions demanded. Was eventually ranted a "U ceteate without any cuts ater 2 letter ‘rom flmmaker Satya Ray requesting forthe seme. © A Time to Rise (1981) had ts certification withels for maintaining flendly relations with other nations (Canada). was eventual granted ‘U' certificate without cats since National Fim Board of Canada itself was frely 61983), The orginal Act No, XXXVI of 1952 ted The Ccnemetcgreph Act, 1952 did not have this provision of empowering the Board to drectctsateratons, Thus the orginal intention ofthe law makers not o give tls ube power to excutve wing of the Government was evident from this fact.on 4 1. That the powers exercised by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 4(2)II) of the aforesaid Act are the powers of censorship, not cerifcation. The general principles provided for in Section 5-8(2) and the guidelines issued by the Centra ‘Government dated 6" December 1991 under Section 5-B(2) are applicable only to the act of certification fms. AS @ consequence, itis submited that there are no guidelines whatsoever which guide the Board while exercising its power of ‘censorship’ under the impugned section. On this ground alone the provisions of Section 4(1)(it) deserve to be decared unconstitutional and being violative of Article 14 It {s.a wel settied poston of law that a provision which grants ‘an unbridled power to an authorlty cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable. 41. The unguided discretion granted to the Board by the tmpugned Section 4(1)() cannot be cured by the Guidelines deted 6 December 1991 which amount to supplementary executive Instructions, The seid Guidelines are abstract, ‘vague, Imprecise leading to rampant erratic, subjective Interpretations of scenes in a fm, hence amount to unfair ‘and cutalling the filmmakers’ freedom of expression. . Since the afore sald Act does not specify any qualifications for the members of the Board andjor the ExeminingL 42 Committee, or the Revsng Commie, or even the Fim Certeation Appelt Tibunel (FACT), the subjective, ceri Interpretation of overbroad, imprecise Guidelines In the hands of unqualified members is almost guaranteed vic in sl is very unfair and unreasonable resco on the flmmaker's fedom of speech, To prevent nancial penury which might be cused due to subjective iterpretatons ofthe Guidelines wile exercising the pre-ensorship given by the impugned Section 4(4), te feakers avoid potently controversial theres which in effect amounts to severe rescon on ther freedom of ‘Speech and expresion as guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a) ofthe Consttution and also prevents the audience to receive information regarding those themes which is violative of thelr ight to have Infomation guaranteed by Art 21. of the Constton, Potentily eonuoversil themes trough the radium of fms can cueston power with trith, or can trigger sve based dlscission, deper Invospectiondespte which those are nt handled by the fim makers which mars the very objective of fim crtifation as stated n Guideline 1b) whichis arse expression and creative freedom are not unduly cube.| 43 M,Guideline 4 (2), (6) and (e) ought not to be the objectives while certifying a fim. The Respondent No, 2 can not be the protectors of mara compass of the society when the values and standards of sacety are constantly changing with the hanging times, Similarly, the Respondent No 2is incapable of ensuring that the, film Is of aesthetic value and cinematicaly of @ good standard, since iti the prerogative ofthe flm-makers. N.That Section 4(1}(u) Is violative of Atice 14 of the Cconsttution In as much as it treats two similarly situated entitles In 2 dlssinlar manner. In Abbas (Supra), this, Hon'ble Court has observed as fllows: "20, Further it has been almost universally recognised thatthe treatment of metion pictures must be diferent from that of ‘other forms of art and expression, This ‘wises_ftom_the_instat_apoeal_of the rmoti_icte, —s_wereaiv._reatsn (often sureaism), and is co-oinaton of the wsual and awa senses. The art of the I semecaman, with tek —hotoaranh, visayision, and th slonal sion inh nem 5 tet a 2 oF representative art. The mation picure is able to stir up emotions more dsealy than any_otar xt. Its effect particulary on chisren and adolescents is wery great since their immaturity makesthem more willnly suspend ther dsbeit than mature men and women, They also remember the ation inthe picture and try to emulate or imitate what they have seen. Therefore, dasifcation of fms Into two categories of U' fms and’ fims is @ reasonable classification. Is also for this reason_thal_motion_picures_must_be regarded. differently from other forms_of ‘speech and expression. A person reading 2 book or other writing or hearing @ speech of viewing 2 painting or sculpture is not 30 deeply stired as by seeing ‘motion picture. Therefore the treatment of the [ater of a ferent footna is ais 8 li on.” [Emphasis Supplied] ‘Simitay, in S: Rangarajan v. P, Jagjivan Ram & Others (1989) 2 SCC 574, a two-Judge Bench of this Honble Court has observed: “10. Movies doubtless enjoys the guarantee under Artide 19(1)(@) but there Is one significant difference between the movie and other modes of communication. The ‘cannot function ina the nsreser es Powerful means of communication Jt can, therefore, be seid that the movie has unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings. It has as much potential for ev {It has for good, It has an equal potential to instil or cultivate violent of ‘good behaviour. With these qualities and since It caters for mass audience who are restraint is. therefore, not only desirable butalso necessary.” [Emphasis Supplied] (0. That as 15 mentioned hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court has treated motion pictures to be diferent from other forms of art and expression on the basis of Rs Instant appeal, its versatility, realism (often surrealism), and its co-ordination ‘of the visual and aural senses, It observed that the motion Picture is able to str up emotions more deeply than any. ‘other product of at. These aforementioned characteristics of mation pictures most certainly distinguish it from Uterature (prose and poetry), painting, sculpture and to 2 certain extent theatre as well, However, certain other forms of46 visual entertainment and expression can also be attbuted with the aforesaid characersts. For instance, television and intemet videos available on digtal platforms are mast cetany 25 inuenal as motion pictures and (In certain cases) have @ much wider reach. The curacterstes of instant appeal, its versatity, realism (often surealsr), and its coordination of the visual and aural senses are atibutable to television and intemet videos as wel Homever, there Is no pre-censrship for the content shown on television or vi the Internet In other words, there I m0 provision akin to Section 41) of the Cnematograph Act 1952 which Is applicable ether to Televison of to videos avaliable on the digtal medums tke Youtube, Netfc et Hence, the pre-censorship that can be exercised by the Board amounts to dscriminatory and Wolative of Art 14 of the Constitution. That person/s found contravening the provisions of the Cable TV Act are punished in acoordonce with Section 16 of the Cable TV Adt. Its pertinent to note that Cable TV Act does not have any provisions akin to Secon 4(3)H) or Section 58 ofthe Cnematograph At, 1952, Thus, nsofer as televsion programmes are concerned, they are not47 subjected to any form of censorship (nether pre nor post). 1's entirely voluntary withthe deterrent of punitive ection, That in Ramesh Dalal v. Union of Inala (1988) t SCC 688, ths Honourable Court has held: "21, .ts no doubt tru that the motion picture is @ powerful instrument with much stronger Impact on the visual and aural senses of the spectators than any other medium of communication; likewise, It is ‘als true thatthe television, the range of ‘which has vastly developed in our country in the past few years, now reaches out t0 the remotest comers of the country ‘tering to the not so. sophisticated, Ierary or educated masses of people living in cstantvilages.." “Therefore, now it cannot be argued that there Is any sort of ‘stncton between televisions and films. The Issue about Identical characteristics being shared by televisions and fis now stands settled by the aforesaid judgment of Ramesh Dalal (Supr) That what 15 tue in case of Televison programmes is equaly te Incase of Internet videos. Internet videos are governed by the provisions of the Infomation Technolgy Act, 2000 (hereinafter refered to as the “IT Act). No provision akin to Section 4(1}ti) or Section 98 of the CGnematograph Act, 1952 is formulated in the said TT Act,48 Hence, content available onthe Internet Is completely free of ‘censorship. 'S. That once it 1s established that motion pictures, television programmes and internet videos, al form a part ofthe same class, then the differential treatment accorded to the same ‘content expressed on/through these various mediums would be violative of Atide 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 uarentees equalty before the law and confers equal Protection of laws. It prohibits the State from denying persons or cass of persons equel treatment provided they ate equals and are similarly situated. But, It's equally well ‘stablshed that Article 14 seeks to prevent or prohibit a person oF ciass of persons from being singled out from others situated similarly. In other words, ticle 14 prohibits similar treatment to similarly stuated persons. Thus, in the present case, 2 motion picture producer 1s faced wen censorship, but a television programme or internet video producer is not. He is required to exercise sefrestrain or face prosecution. On that around alone, the provisions of Section 4(1)(il) and Secton SB of the aforesald Act are Violtive of Art 14 of the Constitution and wuinerable to a challenge.49 ‘T, That It Is @ well settled postion of law that a reasonable dassifcation Is one which includes all who are similarly situated and none who are not. A reasonable classification is fone which includes all persons wo are simfarly situated with respect tothe purpose ofthe lat, The purpose of 2 law ray be either the elimination of a public mischlef or the achievement of some postive public good. A classification is, under-incusive witen all who are Included In the class are tainted with the mischief but there are others also tainted whom the classitcation does not incude, In other words, a classification Is bad as under-inclusive when a State benefits for burdens persons in a manner that furthers a legitimate purpose but does not confer the same benefit or place the seme burden on others who are similarly situated. The Provisions of Section 4(1)it) of the Cnematograph Act suffers from the vice of ‘under-inclusiveness’ and Is therefore ilative of Article 14 of the Constitution. U.That the power to demand cuts and to deny certifcation respectively under Section 4(1Xil) and also 4(1}(v) has been used for extraneous purposes. Objections of e political andjor Ideological nature have often been raised to the advantage of the ruling party, at the cost of artistic freedom of speech. The Petitioner submits that as a consequence, the50 Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of viewing acclaimed and Informative fllms which give an altemate perspective. The Pettlonér, as a citizen of India, has the right to receive Information and the right to know under ‘tide 19(1a) and Article 21 of the Constitution wich are Violated by the impugned Sections as is exercised present, That as Adults, the Pettoner Is ented to watch any im which: as reaived ether catcation vz. U, UIA or A However, refusal to grant certification based on guidelines wich are vague, overbroad and unreasonable defeats the fundamental right ofthe Petitioner as an auience to reeive information, to get entertained. On this ground alone, the power given vide Section 4{1)(W) of the Act needs to be restlcted 50 28 not to curb the fundamental rigts of the Petitioner and the audience at large. |W.That the aforesaid Act provides for other provisions such as Section 6(2), Section 13(2) and Rule 32 whereby the Government can cate to the sentiments of the audience and felther act sue moto or upon any objection/complaint of alleged offensive or Incite full scene/fiim is received through Its mechanism. The said provisions allow the Government to reexamine the already certifed fm in ight of the facts developed or complaint received post its exhibition. Hence,51 ‘even in the absence of the impugned provisions of Section AQ), the five objectives of flim certieation as are specified in Guideline 1(@) to (e) can be ensured equally effectively. (That @ ‘cnematograp fl’ as Is defined under Clause (dd) ‘of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act Includes *..any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures of series of pictures’. Documentaries which depict realty are coser to ‘news or investigative reports, and are chronicles of an event ‘or an incident, Documentaries are not merely @ reflecton of realty, but the realty Itself. Documentaries can be equated ‘to news reports and or editorial submissions. As mentioned hereinbefore, news reports or edtorial submissions are nelther subjected to censorship, nor certification. That being the case, it 1S absolutely unconstitutional to subject Documentaries to precensorship and pre certification. ‘Treating documentaries and news reports in ifferent manner violates the provisions of Artide 14 of the Constitution. “That the medium of documentaries Is routinely subjected to ruthless censorship. The Petitioner, 2s a ctzens of India, hes the right to receive Information under Arle 19(1)(a) ‘and Atle 21 of the Constitution wich along with Article 1452 are vated cue to the eppleaton of Secton (1H) ofthe aforesld Act to Documentaries. 1 is therefore necessary thet documentaries ought to be exempted from the requirement of ceticaton fom the Board. The aforesaid Act, Insofar 26 does not make any distinction between 2 documentary fm and 2 non-documentary fm treats two ssimiar forms of asic expression and medium of ‘communication in 2 similar fasion and thus vltes the quarartee of equal protection of the laws stpuated in Atle 14 ofthe Constitution. 2. That although news reports of an event are not prevented trom being made avalable fr publ viewing, documentaries cn the same lve are refused certfeation, thus denying pubic access thereto, Its submited thet the Pttoner hes bean dened access to documentaries suchas Sik (made by the rena ad ane wining Mame Saya ay) and No Fire Zone, deste the news rept of the events depicted the documentaries belog publicly avaabe. |AA, That the Petitioner is also aggrieved by Section 3 of the aforesaid Act In accordance with which the Board Is ‘constituted. Section 2(b) ofthe Act defines the term "Board” ‘to mean \..the Board of Film Certification constituted by the CContral Government under Section 3%ewe a, cc. 53 That the Section 3 does not presoibe / lay down the qualification of the Caiman or the Members ofthe Board. On this ground alone the constuton ofthe Board Is void and consttutonally Invalid, The Board caries out important statutory functions. Despte ts role, the members con be selected at random by the Cental Goverment, Nether the 1952 Act nor the 1983 Rules provide for even bare minimum qualifications which a member or the Chaimnan. must possess for being appointed to the post, The lack of have acess ciliy cremaigaple and documentary vers wich tare adress the pubes ttt feat and he ight to eave erent We this Hone Cait ts gone to the et hl ht thse oohs emanate fom the rg 0 fede of speech and expression under Artide 19(1Xe) of the Constitution, In his present era of information technology ftNN, 59 ‘may be sai that these rights are also traceable to the right ‘tw life under Article 21 ofthe Constitution. ‘That cnematograph fms ordinarily require @ large outlay of finances, and various resources to make. A vast majority of ‘nematograph flms are also made with profit motive, hile sub-servng the interests of otowth of the ats, as well as ofthe right to freedom of speech and seif expression, It is submited that certification of fms are routinely withheld With the sole Intent of coercing the flm-makers, producers and distributors thereof into acceding to the modifications demanded for certification, resuiting In gross abuse of the wer of certification and pre-censorship. . That the various frivolous cuts are demanded of fms for certification thereof, usually for oblique and poltical motives, hich majoty of fm-makers unwilingly accede to, owing to financial burdens. Some instances of such frivolous cuts being demanded are: 2. Kuttrapaththiibta! (Tamil, 1993/2007): Certification was withheld for cuts to be made of scenes showing traning of rebels in the Sri Lankan Civil Wars, and of police ‘officers fleeing from the scene when former Prime Minster Rajiv Gandhi Is assassinated, The fl was60 released without cus in 2007, fourteen years later, on orders ofthe Madras High Court. Kama Sutra. b tale of love (English, 1996): Certfeaton was withheld for deletion of scenes depicting nudity, The rudlty was an essential part of the fm, where one character wes a courtesan, and the theme ofthe fim was the two central female protagonists attempting to win the sevval favours of one of the male protagonists. Was released in Inca after extensive cus ‘Fre (Hind, 1998): Certiicaton was withdrawn due to hooliganism at the time of ts release, and it was re- eamined, 1. Bzanch (Hindi, 1998): Was certified for release eventually after various cits of scenes depicting violence and drug usage, but could not be released owing to financial difictes incurred by the Producer by then. - War and Peace / Aman aur Jung (Documenta Hindi, 2002): Certfcaion was withheld for cuts of about nglish / 20 minutes of the fm. Bombay High Court eventually permitted release of the flm without any cuts. f. Pink Miror / Guleaty Aaina (English J Hindl, 2004): Stil Unreleased In India since it depicts homosexuality, sexual61 relationship between a transsexual / transvestte and 2 male. 9. Haya Aaney De (Hind, 2004): Sil unreleased in India since certfiation was withheld on demands of cuts of about 20 minutes, which the flmmakers refused to accede to. 1. Amu (Englis, 2005): When the'flmmakers applied for ‘ecorsideraton ofthe "A" cetifcate to be modified to a "UIA" certfate to enable them to release I In television also, all references to the 1984 anthSikh riots was ‘demanded forthe same; the fm based on the 1984 ant- ‘ik Hots. ‘Had_Aahad (Hindi, 2008): Certification was witaheld Unless cuts were made; Delhi High Court eventually permits release without cuts, and awards costs of Rs. 10,000 tothe fier. 4 The Gir_with the Dragon Tattoo (English, 2011): Certification withneld: demanding scenes showing rape ‘and torture be deleted. Stil unreleased in Indi Bape Bure (Malayalam | English, 2013): Wes certied after scenes were blured and audio wes muted as demanded.62 |. No_fice Zone: In the Kiling Fields’ of Sti Lanka (Muttingual Documentary, 2014): Stil unreleased in tla as certification was withheld pending cuts regarcing scenes showing prisoners of the Chil War in Se Lanka being stripped, tortured, and extrajudicial exterminated by the Sr Lankan Army. m.Unfreedom (Documentray; English, 2015): Stil ‘unreleased in India as certification was withheld pending cuts, which were not acceded to. 1. The Painted House (Malayalam / English, 2015): Stil ‘unreleased in India as certification was withheld pending demands for scenes involving nudity being deleted. 6. Mahala Ass|(Hind/2016): A fim based on a very popular Work “Kashi Ke Ass! by Or, Keshinath Singh was refused cattication ting reason that it might hurt religious sentiments, The Producer has filed 2 Wilt Petition in Delhi High Court agalnst the decision ofthe Appellate Tribunal confirming the Board's refusal . Shoranam Gachcham! (Telagu/20%7): A film on cast based quota was denled certifiate on the grounds that it right affect pubic order and disrupt peace. 4, Jay LLB (Hina, 2017): The fects surrounding the cuts demanded in Joly LLB are unusual. In this case, after the63 Board had given its certicaton, a PIL was fled jn the ‘Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court alleging that sine the image of the judiciary woul! be maligned due to certain scenes, the said scenes needed to be eminated from the fim. The High Court went on to irect certain cuts which were not considered necessary by the Board. «- Upsick under my Buraa (Hind, 2017): The CBFC recently has refused to cettly this movie because, according to the Board “the stay i lady avented .. there are sexual scenes, abusive words, auclo pomogrephy and a bit sensitive touch [sc] about one particular section of sodlety’. The Board has refused certification under dauses 1(@), 2), 2(6), 2), 26x), 20) and 3¢) ofthe 1991 Guidelines, The Producer has approached the ‘Appelate Tribunal against the sid decison. Its submitted thatthe above Ist, though ince, i by no means exhaustive, 2s large number of cts demanded by the Respondent No. 2 are not reported by fm-makers, who are more conéerned with ensuring tinely release of thelr films.ee 64 PP. ‘That the Pettoner has been denled his right to view many ‘ofthe above fims such as Paanch (Hind, 2001) release of ‘which was delayed by the Respondent No. 2 by arbitrarily demanding deletions from the movie, eventualy resting in the release ofthe movie fnancaly unviable forthe producer thereot QQ. That owing to the lack of guidelines, the unbridled poner, and the subjective nature ofthe exercise of certieation, the Petitioner has been died his ight to view fms such as ‘The Pink Mirtor/ Guaaby Aaa (English / Hi, 2001), Hava -Aaney De (Hin, 2008), Gandy (English / Bengal, 2010), The Gil with the Dragon Tattoo (Englsh, 2011), Chatrak (Gengal, 2011), 50 Shades of Grey (Englsh, 2015), Unfreedom (Engh, 2015), The Palnted House (Malayalam / English, 2015) and Mohali Ass (Hind, 2016) merely owing to the subjectne porception of the members of the Respondent No. 2 of acceptable sewal and / or social behaviour Its pertinent to point out when the above fins were censored, there are numerous contrary examples of fms cepicing sexual intercourse (Parched, 2016 contained cenplitscones of seal ntercouse), LGBTQ persons, hts, Telaonships and Intercourse (Gin, 2004; Arche-naar 2012; Darmiyaan, 1997; Kapoor & Sons, 2016; My Brother.65 kh, 2015, 1 Am, 2010; et), and containing expict lenguoge (Omkare, 2006 1 parteuary notable for cretutous use of exp terms / expetnes in the Khana dlolect by all the central chractess) that were granted ceotiicate without any objection being raised to such content, The arbtrarines of certfcation ofthe fim Parched without any cutsjaterations despite 2 graphic sewally intimate scene while ating the 2 Kissing scene which is quintessential in the James Sond film Spectre (2016) 1 umessoneble and violative of Constitutional rights of the Petitioner aswel as other cizens of Ina. “That te discrimination er facie apparent fom the instances hed above 1s soley owing to the absolte lack of any qudetnes whatsoever n exercise ofthe powers, resulting in the poner being exercised not merely arbitrary, but aso fly and intentionally n an oie manner with 2 vew to furthering ulterior motives, especially poltcal, to shape ‘opinions on socio-political and communal issues. and perpetuate patcia opinions. “That the discrimination Is even more apparent in respect of documentaries, which are mere depictlon of real fe evens / facts, and inherenty Incapable of ‘being pre-ensored. “Though a fundamental right ofan Indian Citizen, the right to66 free speech and! expression by means of documentaries has been and is being subject to large scale llega abridgement / | denial, The consequence of curtaiment of free flowing information is that any healthy debate and rticsm, essential tothe proper functioning of a demacracy I stifed. ‘TT. This Hon'ble Court the judgment in R.A: Anand v. Delhi ‘High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, wile holding that NOTY could telecast a sting operation (invohing a prosecution witness and puidlec prosecutor and defence lawyer) In relation to a case sub judlce before the Court without any prlor approval ofthe tial court, Delhi High Court also held that media cannat be subjected to pre-censorship in the following words : "290, It would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order; and media too would certainly not relish the role of being the snoopers for the coutt. Moreover, to insist that 2 report concerning a perwinu wie may be published a ‘a sting operation concerning a trial may be done only subject to the por consent and permission of the UU. That the right to freedom to practice any trade, profession ‘or business is completely effaced by the illegal and arbitrary ‘exercise of the power of certification. It is submitted that67 fims requ large outlay of facial and other resources being made at te ouset and at various sages in the raking of @ fi, which investment is made eying largely onthe timely release ofthe fl inthe same for in wich wes made, However, by arbitrary and ilegaly exercising the power to wild / refuse certicaton, the entre process is frustrated, resulting in denial of the said Fundamental Right guaranteed under Artice 19(1)(9). W. That the power Is untrammelled and, being without auideines, sufers from vagueness end deserves to be set aside Is especialy apparent from the fact that despite a large umber of fis being denied certification, the sald fis are nonetheless released upon judicial review of the order denying or withholding certification, solely on the ground thatthe same were exercised arbitreily or ilegaly. \WWi-That assuming the precensrsip provisos are removed from the aforesaid Act, Just the way the Act was when cviginaly drafted, no adverse impact onthe socey wl be rade, no law and oder stuation wl be created, none of the objectives of fm certain as speed In Guidelines Cause (1) wil be hampered among oer things, because te ims get relssed wit cue ertfcaton but without any pre-censorship, The fear of adversity is unfounded which is68 proved by the fact that each film maker who has contested the Board's Wemands of cuts/ alterations on the grounds of impropriety or apprehension of law and order stuation, has ‘succeeded in releasing his/her film in its original form upon getting the Board’s demands quashed and in fact no such ‘danger or harm was posed withthe said release, (That if free speech is about the right to receve information, an about the socal good of @ publ sphere in which Information crcuetes freely and wily, then the vehices of Information such 25 fms, documentaries, news reports, artistic endeavours such as play, dance & music erormance ete must occupy 2 place dvoid of pre- censorship. If content infon news repos, television entertainment channels, radio stations, internet flows freely sans pre-cnsorship without posing any harm/danger to oct, to folate and subject fms, documentaries fom this freedom is merely regressive. thas been 27 years since the decison In Aboas was given and massive changes in infrastructure, technology and ali other spheres of fe Ineuding the socacukurl realty have taken place. It is high time the Judicary helps improve our democracy and publi space whe ensuring genuine freedoms, cecing due ‘exercise of self-restaint, for which It removes the provisionsoo 69 of pre-censorsip from the aforesaid Act and the impugned 1983 Rules. /. The restriction on the freedom of expression under Article 19(2)'o the Constitution of Inde and Section $8(4) and 58(2) of the Act ned to be Interpreted narowly, It must be shown that erect’ and neeelt impact of he fl il be agains the interests I Sovereignty and integity of nda, the secuty of the Stte,fendy relations with forelgn states, public order, decency, or morality, of lnvoves defamaton or content of Court ori tkly to Ince the commission of any offence. When fs, patculry Aocurentar fms are made portraying fees and realty, the cbjecves may be varied and ther content &s open to subjective Interpretation. Therefore a test of a ‘dec’ and ‘immediate’ impact must be requted to be applied for such attic expression to be cutaled In any manner. ‘The Shyam Benegal Committee was constituted by the ‘Government. It has rendered a detailed report lying down the manner in which the Board must carry out or recommend modifications in such artistic expression. The recommendations ofthe Benegal Commitee must be given effect to and the Ac, Rules and Guidelines thereunder must70 be enforced in accordance with the Benegal Committee recommendations. AAAThat the pote! for adepabity with changing times is croraved in the shes Act reugh Section 5X3) vibereby the vay ofthe certicate grote Is dedared to be val ont fo ten years and not in perpetuty. Rule 29(2) cf the impugned Rules provides for renenal ofthe etate ic Is mandsted to be tested a5 WF were an oral application’ The itentonbetind Keeping the vality only for ten years was to Keep the possi for fl maker tho was given 2’ certfate ten years ago 10 ppt for and to recive a fresh U'erteate commensurate withthe charging tines. The rian aw makers was rat even to orant powers of demanding changes inthe oil fim content a6 the 3 impugned provision of Section 0 wes ever nthe gal Act and wes inodueed nly 1981, 158. Te ret Sugemert ofthe Sipeme Cost n Aon Sigh 8016, Conmacte(Oea & Os 217 SCC, Loker, n pos 48 to 5, while enhating on the need of the at apt the hang sacl ny evi bye tenga adancenent, cbse, “oll as 19 be recognized that there is @ continuing process of the growtha of aw and one can retard only at the risk of allenating la from life sel” Coniderng the mammath changes in human realty and soctal competion sine the decision of 1 Abbas (Supra, e's hgh time the impugned Act, Rules ‘and Guidelines get an overall face it. ‘CCC. That the categories for cetiication as Is sper in Section ‘A(t oF Section 5A(1 ofthe aforesaid Act may be increased and changed so as to accommodate the content te fin to afferent groups of population. New categories such 26 ‘not for Under 12% ‘not for Under 15, “Under Porental Guidance’, “Adult with Caution’ with mandates of specie disdlmers in the publety mater and before the inal ‘ret ttles ofthe fn’ etc may be introduced, ‘DDD. That the Guidelines dated 6 December 1991 specified in Cause (2) thereof ought to be quashed on the ground of beng overbroad, arbitrary, Impredse, vague, etc. The removal of the sald Guidlines wil not have any adverse effec as the Board wil stil be bound by the guidelines provided by Section 58(1) ofthe aforesalé Act wich are repleaton of the resticons set in Ae 192) ofthe Consttuton. Hence no injuyiarm wil be caused upon ‘questing ofthe said Guidelines.ee. FF, 06. 72 “That itis proncunced in M.P. ¥ Rakesh Kohli (2012)6 SCC 312 by this Honvale Court that when the laws passed by the Parliament have fans which are of Constitutional nature, the impugned Act needs tobe dele imal The present Act suffers from so many inadequacies and defects hampering the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and other Indian Citizens that the impugned portions of the s2me ought to be eciared Invalid to that extent. ‘documentary maker Is capable of taking responsibilty of axtulating an appropiate dclaimer whlch wil alarm, warm o give noice to the audlence about its theme/restment and sss raised thereon along with infomation whether it involves violet or sewal content ete thet_may be Inaperopriate for poterily wuinerable autlence (Inclung eter). The text of the sad scaimer may be vere by the Respondent No, 2 who shall ten suggest chenges in that text Ifthe content ofthe documentary warants the If the sald disclaimer stays on the screen for 2 duration ranging from 30 seconds to 90 seconds depending on theHHH, m, aw. 73 length of the text, before the beginning of the actual ocumentary, the auslence wil be able to make an informed cholee about viewing the content 18 unter and dlciminatory to impose same amount of fees as are presently required to be pid for craton of documentaries as that forthe feature films wich ave budgets running in cores of rupees, Considering this isparty and the ited avenues for reverue generation open for documentaries the fee be completely waived or be fixed at a token value forthe documentaries, “The rampant arbitrariness, fvourism, prejudice in decison tating whe processing the application for certifation which i prevalent presen as is evden rom the decisions trade In cases of fins *Prched, "Saat Uchchokke' “Ut Punjab" and "Sofie, ght tbe stopped 50 as to restore fath of the filmmakers and audience lang wth uaranteeing thelr fundamental rights. ‘Shyam Benegal committee that was appointed by the Respondent No, 1 isef has submitted its recommendations which were arrived at after taking the film fratemity’sKKK, 22 74 submissions and the Pettionér Is satisfied with their suggestions. ‘That the Petitioner has not filed any ater simiarpettion before this Horble Court in respect ofthe Issues relsed in the present pettion, Iti Zubmitied that this Honle Court thus has the jurstcion to entertain the present Wet Petition. ‘That the Petitioner has not fled any other or similar petition ‘ether before this Hon'ble Court or any other Court in respect of the issues raised In the present petition. This Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Wir tion. ‘That Annexures P-1 to P- 4 produced along with this Wit Petition are true and correct copies of thelr respective originals. “The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to add to, ater, amend and/or modty any ofthe grounds afore stated.75 25, The Petitioner has no other equally efficacious remedy ‘valabl to him other than to fle the instant Whit Pttion under Article 32 ofthe Constitution forthe protection of his fundamental ights under Ales 14, 19 and 21 of the Consttution. The Issues canvassed tn this Petition are constitutional questions of seminal importance, 26, The Pettioner states thatthe present petion Is being led ‘bonafie and in the interests of justice. PRAYER In light ofthe above facts and submissions and in the interest of Justice, itis humbly prayed that this Hontble Court be graciously pleased to: (Issue a wt, order or direction In the nature of certiorart dedaring the provisions of Section 4(1Xli) of the CGnematograph Act, 1952 25 unconstitutional, by virtue of | | ! |“ aw ww) 76 being In violation of Aces 14, 19(1){) and 21 of the CConstiution of India and quash the same; and Issue a vit, order or direction in the nature of cervorai, derlaring the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Cinematograph Ac, 1952 and Rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1958, as unconstitutional by vitue of being in violation of aitides 14, 19(1)(2), and 21 of the Constitution of India and quash the same; and Issue a wit order 0° recon Inthe nature of extra, declaring the provisions of Secon (1) and Section 5(2) of the Chnemategrph Act, 1952 along wth Rule 7(3) ofthe CCnematograph (Cetfication) Rules, 1958, as unconsutonal by vitue of beng in velaton of Arties 14, 19(2(@), nd 21 ofthe Constton of Ina and quash the same; and Issue a wrt, order or diretion In the nature of certorai, declaring the provisions of Section 'SD(2) to (5) of the CGnematograph Act, 1952 as unconstutional by virtue of boeing in violation of Attdes 14, 19(1)a), and 21 of the” a) wi) 77 Constitution of Inca, and Rule No. 24(2), No. 33(2}, No. 46) of the Cisematograph (Certification) Rules, 1958 and ‘quash the same; and Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of cetiorar edaring the objectives 'd and ein the Clause t of the Guidelines dated 6" December 1991 as unconstitutional by virtue of being in lation of Articles 14, 19(1}(@), and 23 of ‘the Constitution of tndia and quash the same; and Inve wor or ret he naire of certo declaring the Clause 2 of the Guidelines dated 6* December 1991 as unconstitutional by vitue of belng in violation of Ailes 14, 19(1(@), and 21 of the Constitution of India ‘and quash the same: and Issue @ wrt, order oF direction in the nature of certiorari dedaring the Rule Wo. 22(2) and 22(8) of the CGnematograph (Certfaion) Rules, 1958, as unconstitutional by viru of being in vclation of Articles 14, 19(2)(@),ané 28 ofthe Consttaton of India and quash the same; and78 (ot) issue @ wt, order or dection in the nature of mandamus cedarng that the exiting categories of the certification spected in Section 58(1) of the Chematograph Act, 1952 are inadequate as these fall to inform the audience about the sutablity ofthe cantentto vulnerable viewers; and (0) Issue an appropriate Wirt, Order or Direction reading down the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 so as to ‘exclude from Its purview "documentary films", end declaring that “documentary fms" do not fll within the ambit of Section 2(c) read with Section 2(dd) of the Cinematograph ‘Act, 1952 and, consequenty, are not subject to any pre- ‘censorship noms; and (0), Issue a wt, order or drecton in the nature of mandamus, directing the Cenval Goverment to frame aperopate ies 80 as to incorporate provisions of disclaimer, Its text, sppesrance, length etc that should appear before the beginning ofthe documentary fms and to tat extent ater the provisions ofthe Cematograph At 1952; ane79 fe ee ee | directing the Central Government to walve the prevalent fee snp todo te nt nent athe provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952; (xi) Issue 2 weit, order or direction in the nature of mandamus | declaring that the present Respondent No. 2 Board is incompetent o cary out any functions under the provsons , ofthe Gnematograph Act, 19523 (at) Issue a wrt, order or direction In the nature of mandamus ledaring that any executive body or board or commission appointed by the executive is nt 2 competent boty to djuicate whether a fim has content to Invite 2 reasonable restriction under Atle 19(2) ofthe Constibtion as such an adjccation 1s onty within the domain and competence of the Judiciary of India; and (iv) Issue an appropriate Wht, Order or Direction declaring that the law laid down in Abbas was per incuriam as the Abbas decision was rendered without even considering the law laid80 down in Bry Bhushan whicn was decided by @ she Judge ‘Bench ofthis Hon'ble Court; [AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY Drawn By Filed by Sanjoy Ghose & (Gautom Narayan Gautam Narayan. (duocates) (Advocate forthe Petitioner) Settled by ie. Gopal Subramanium Senior Advocate DRAWN ON: 25.02.2017 FILED ON: 03.20178) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.of 2017 (Under Acti 32 ofthe Consttutien of India) INTHE MATTER OF: Wr, Armel Palka _ Pttoner versus Union of tna & Ane v= Respondents AFFIDAVIT 1, Mr. Amol Palekar, So. Kamlalar, aged about 72 years, residing at | Prabhat Rood, Pune - 411004, Maharashtra, present in New Del, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1, That Lam the Petitoner herein, and 3s such am duly authorises and competent o affirm the preset ofa 2.1 state that the present Wit Petition hi oo Bea nn cea etatpongen ve pre eaeacead | See eee aia ences at New Delhi on this thet? day of Febwary, 2017 thatthe ‘ofthe above affidavit are true and correct tothe best of my - jedge an belt and no pat of is false and nothing material as concealed therefrom. |82 APPENDIX ‘The Cinematograph Act 1952 ‘Section 2(c) ofthe aforesaid Act defines “cnematograph” to Include °..any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures gr series of pictures. Further, Section 2 (dd) defines, “im” to mean cinematogragh film, The aforesaid Act does not provide for a ditnct definition for documentaries’. Section 31) reads as under: For the purpose of sanctioning fms for public exibition, the Central Government may, by notification tn the Offical ‘Gazette, constitute a Board to be called the Board of Film Certification which shall consist of a Chairman and not ess than twelve and not more than twenty-five other members ‘appointed by the Central Government. ‘Section 4 of the aforesaid Act provides for examination of films which reads as under: ‘Examination of Fims.— (1) Any person desing to exhibit any ‘lm shall in the prescribed manner make an application to the Board fora certfcate in respect thereof, and the Board may, after examining or having the fim examined in the prescribed manner, =| 83 (Sanction the fm for unrestricted public exhibition: [Provided that, having regard to any material in the film, if the Board Is of the opinion that It s recessary to caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see such a film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such cild, the Board may sanction the film for Unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement to that effect; or] (@ Sanction the fim for pubic exhibition restricted to aduts, or (ia) Sanction the fim for pubic exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any cass of persons, having regard to the nature, content and theme of the fl; oF (i) Direct the applicant to carryout such excisions or ‘madfcations in the film as it things necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition Under any of the foregoing causes; or (iv). Refuse to sanction the film for pubic exhibition84 (2) No action under the proviso to cause (), cause (i), clause iba), aus (i) or dause (W) of sub-section (1) shal be taken by the Board except after giving an opportunity to the applicant for representing his iews in the matte.” Section 51) (1) For the purpose of enabling the Board to effcenty discharge the functions under this Act, the Central Government may ‘establish at such regional centres as it thinks fit, advisory panels ‘each of which shall consist of such number of persons, being persons quafled In the opinion of the Central Government to judge the effect of fms on the public, 2s the Central Government ‘may think ft to appoint thereto. ‘Section 5:8 provides for certification of fms as is reproduced hereunder — 5A, Corttication of fms ~ (2) If, after exanining a Fl or having the flm examined in the prescribed manner, the Board considers that — (@) the fm is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or, as the ‘case may be, for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement ofthe nature mentioned inthe provision to cause (’) of sub-section (1) of secton 4, it shall grant to the personapplying for a certificate In respect ofthe flm a "U" certificate oF, ‘as the case may be, a"UA" certicate; oF (6) the fm snot sutabe for unrest public exibon, but s suitable for'publc exibition restricted to adits or, as the case may be, suitable for public exibition restricted to members of any profession or any dass of persons, shal grant to the person plying fra cericate in respect ofthe fm 2 certfcate asthe cae may be , nS certificate, and cause the fm to beso tmaked nthe prescribed manner. Section 8 Prnpes for guidance in cetfying fins. — “Se, princes for guidance in certhing fis: (4) A fim sta not be certifed for pubic exibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to rant certficate, the fim or any pot of i is against the irterests of Ure soverelgnty and Intgety of Inia, the secunty of the State, fiendy relations with foreign ‘States, pube order, decency, or morality, oF involves defamation or contempt of Court 1 hey to ince the commision a any fence. (2). Subject othe provisions contained in sub-section (2), the Cental Government may ive such dectons 3s It may think fit setting out the principles which shall guideaoe 86 the authority competent to grant certificates under this et “The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 Section 2(a) of the said Act defines the term programme as follows: \(g) programme means any television broadcast and Includes ~ (exhibition of fms, features, dramas, advertisements and serials through video cassette recorders or video cassette layers; (i any audio or visual or audlo~isual lve performance or presentation, and the expression ‘programming service! shall be construed accordingly.” ‘Section 5; Programme Code.~ No person shall transmit or re- ‘transmit through @ cable service any programme unless such programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code. ueTER Vv SSection19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in publle Interest-- Where [any authorised officer, thinks it necessary or expedient so to do inthe puble interest, he may, by order prohiit any cable operator from87 ‘transmitting or re-transmitting [any progremme or channel fi Is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section § and advertisement code referred to in section 6 oI is] key to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or i-wil between different religious, redial, ingulstic or regional groups ‘or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the publ tranquility. Section 20. Power t9 prohibit operation of cable television network in public interest] Where the Central Government this it necessary oF expedient so to do In public interest, ‘may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in ‘such areas 2s it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, speaiy In this behal [(2) Where the Central Government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the Interest ofthe (sovereignty or integrity of India; or (@)_secunty of india; or (li) friendly relations of India with any foreign State or (Ww) public oder, decency oF morality,88 1t may, by order, regulate or probibit the transmission or re- transmission of any channel or programme. (Where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel Is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to In section 5 or the prescribed advertisement code referred to in Section 6, t may by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission ‘or retransmission of such programme). ‘The Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958. ule22. Application for examination of flms:-(3) Every application to catty 2 film for pubic exibition shall be made In writing in Form II set out in the Schedule , according as the film is produced In, or Imported nto, Inca, (4 in the case of anes ree, documentary or other short tim the Reson OfMcer is sated thatthe applicant is notable to furish the document speed in cause (b) of subnie (3), along with the application for reasons beyond his contra, the Regional Offer may direct that such documents may be fuished within such petod after the examination ofthe fm as he may spect, or thatthe submission of such documents may be dispensed with23, Examining Commitee: (1) On receint of en application under rule 22 the Reglonal Officer shall appoint an Examining Committee to examine the fi. The examination shall be made at such place ‘and at such time as the Regional Officer may determine and atthe expense ofthe applicant (2) The Examining Commitee sal consist of__ (@) in the case ofa news reel, documentary short, oF @ cartoon of In the case of a film predominantly educational, a member of the ‘Advisory Panel and the Regional Offcer or Assistant Regional officer; and (©) in the case of any other fis, four members of the Advisory Panel and the Regional Officer or the Assisting Regional Office; (2) immediately after the examination ofthe fi, the opinion of the menbers of the Bamining Commitee attending the examination shal be recorded in dupcate by the Regional Ofer oF Asisting Regional Offer, ox In the absence of beth, by @ member ofthe Commitee appointed by the Regional Officer for this purpose stating, wth regard to each member, whether he considers— (@) that the film is or Is not sultable for unrestricted public ‘exhibition; oF90 () thatthe fm wil be suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, ‘or public exhibition restricted to adults, as the case may be, If a spectid portion or specie portions be deleted therefrom. (© that the fim is not or Is not suitable for pubic exhiition restricted to adults; oF ‘The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. 3.Terms of ofce- (1) A member of the Board shall hold office during the pleasure ofthe Central Government. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Chairman shall hold office for @ period of three years and shall continue to hold office until his successors is appointed; Provided that pending the appointment of his successor, the Ccentral Government may appoint another person to act 35 Chairman for a period not exceeding one year. (@) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), every other member shal hold office fora peridot exceeding three years (4) Aretiring member or a member whose term of office has expired by effix of time shall be eligible for reappointment.91 ‘After the rule 3, the following new rule shall be inserted, ramely:= "3A. Representation of women in the board.- The Ccentral Government may take such steps as it thinks fit to ‘appoint women members In the Board so that there is due representation for women.” 10, Constitution of advisory panels (a)THe Central Government shall constitute an advisory panel at each ofthe regional offices ofthe Board. (an advisory pane! constituted under sub-ule (4) shall consist of such number of members as the Cental Government may, after consultation with the Board, determine, (2)The Central Government may after consultation with the Board, appoint any person whom it thinks fit to be 2 member of an advisory panel, Provided that the Central Government may dispense with such ‘consuitation in respect of such members not exceeding one-third of the total number of members of the advisory pane! as that Government thinks fit In sub-rule (3) of rue 7, after the proviso the following proviso shall be Inserted, namely: "Provided further that there shall be92 due representation to women In an advisory panel.” (25 per notification dated 16" Nov, 1994). 22, Examining Committee.- (2) The Examining Commitee shall consist (@) [in the case of shot film, a member ofthe advisory panel and ‘an examining officer, and ether of whom shall bea woman.) (©) [in the case ofa ong fm, four members of the advisory panel and an examining officer of whom two persons shall be women}, Provided that if the examining officer is unavoidably absent at the ‘examination of a fm, the Examining Committee shall consist of two members of the advisory panel in 3 case fling under clause (2) and five members of the advisory panel ina case under cause o. 1n rule 22, in sub-rule (2), after the fist proviso, the following proviso shall be added, namely: Provided further that int eh Examining Committee ina case fling under clause (a) one member shall be woman and in case under céause (b) two members shall be women, (as per notification dated 3" August, 1994)93 (8) The Examining Committee shall examine the fm having regard tothe priniples for guidance issued by Government under section 58 (2). 24, Revising Committee:- (2) The Revising Committee shal subject to sub-ue (5), cont of @ Charan and not more than nine members, being of the Board or members of any ofthe advisory panels, to be specified by the Charman, Provided that subject to te provisions of sub- rule(t1), the Charman shall give due representation to women in the Commitee by nominating such number of women members a5 the thinks ft. (as per notification dated 16.11.1994) 32, Re- examining of cate fs ~(1) Where in respect of fin which has been certified for pubic exhibition, any complaint received by the Board, the seme shal be forwarded tothe Cental Goverment (2) The Central Government may, if considers t necessary 60 to do, direct the Chairman to re-examine any fm (in respect: of ich a complint has been reeved by it recy oF trough the Board) in such manner and with such assistance as may be ‘specified inthe rection. (@) The Chairman may, forthe purpose of re-examining aforesaid, require by written nati the person who made the application for94 certification of the fm or the person to whom the rights of nership or cstibutin inthe fm have passed, to arrange at is expense to delver@ print of the certifed fm to any spectied regional ofcer within such tine as may be spied inthe notice forthe purpose of re-examination (4) The place; date and time of such re-examination shall be determined by the Chaiman. (5) The Charman stall forward his opinion together withthe print af the firm in relation to wich 2 catcate was issued eater to the Cental Goverment who may afte such enquky a8 deers ft, pass such orders therean in exerlse ofthe rvisionl powers under section 6 (6) The provisions ofthis rue shall apply only in cases where the revsional powers are exerdsable by the Centrel Government under section 6, 33, Aeration of fim after issue of cerfcate.- (2) Forte purpose of exercising its powers under sub-ule(1) the regional offcer shall appoint an Examining Committee to examine at the expense of the aplicant, the ree! or reals of the fin in then the portion or portions ae ateed in suchmanner and vith such assistance as he may deem fit and where the Bxemining95 ‘committee considered it necessary so to do, it shal re-examine the entre film Provided that where the examining officer Is unavoidably absent at the examination of the flm or any reel thereof, the Examining Committee consist of two members ofthe Advisory Panel. 43, Terms and coreltions of service of the Chairman and members ofthe Appellate Trbunal- (© The Central Government may, after consultation with the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal, appoint ary person whom it thinks to be a member of the Appelate Tribun Provided that the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing dispense with such consultation. ‘The Bombay Police Act, 1951 Section 33(wa) i) Prior scrutiny of such performances [and of the scripts in respect thereof, if any, and granting of suitabilty certificate therefore subject to concitons, if any, [ by the Board appointed by the State Government forthe purpose, elther for the whole State or the area concerned] {the members of the Board being persons who in the opinion of the State Government possess knowledge of, of experience in literature, the theatre and other matters96 relevant to such serutiny, or by an Advisory Committee appointed by the Commissioner, or the District Magistrate inthis behalf) [Provided for appeal against the order or decison ofthe Board to ‘the prescribed authorty, Its appointment or constitution, its procedure and other matters andllary thereto, and the fees (ishether in the form of courtfee stamp or otherwise) to be charged for the scrutiny of such performances or scripts for applications for obtaining such certifiates end for Issuing duplicates thereof and in respect of such appeals]on 97 ANNEXURE P- 1 ‘An Incicatve and non-exhaustive lst of fms that have been denied certifcaton or had thelr certification withhelé subject to ‘modfiations proposed by the Respondent No 2is set out below Year [Film Reasons for refusal 7 withholding of certificate isi [Sikkim A documentary about the (then)] ration of sikm, Was banned for depicting Skim as sovereign nation, ag as copies Sted and destroyed. Was subsequently released n 2010 in | one theatre. 173 [Garam Hawa Depicts the We and family of @ Msi (Urdu) businessman In Uttar Pradesh during the Parttion, Was banned for ebout light months due to its politcal content. 1975 [Aandi Depicts the iter personal relationship between an estranged couple. that meet after several years and. at Afferent stations In fe. Was bannedord 98 Film | | 4 of certificate | Tor pallial ressons “during” the Emergency, and subsequenty released In 1977, 1977 | Kissa Karst ka TB TT | ve Ener es nd, a reels seized and destroyed during te} Emergency. eA | Tndiand Sones and the temple of Doom } an eGionaevertare clonal Tove and part ofthe famous Znclana Jones| series, Was banned for hurting religious sentiments since it portrayed | Goddess Kali as a demon of the underwodd, and Incas 3s consuming | monkey brain (while monkeys were’ regarded as sacred). The ban was: subsequently rescinded. 1587 [Pat Parameshwar TA coierany on thé devin Sawn 2 lady to her hustand despite his being more attached to is mises. Ws tanned for depicting @ woman in99 ‘Year | Film Reasons for refusal 7 withhoiding of certificate "GROBE Sanity oF her husband. The ban was set aside by the Gombay H c. "993 | RaRrapatrthink kai emit) ‘drama fim adapted ta the backdrop fof the Sti Lankan civil war and the assassination of former Prime Minister a Gandhi. Though completed in| 1993, certification was refused unless| cuts were made tothe lm, which was refused. The fm was eventually released without cuts in 2007 on the’ dliectons ofthe Madras High Court 596 [Kama Suva BI tale of love] (English) Kaa of the Terpersonal relationship: between two ladies from different stations of fe whose relationship becomes strained as they ‘grow older and their diferences in tation becomes more pronounced. Was refused certification intially for its sexual content, and was released after100 Year [Filer Reasons for refusal 7 withholding of certificate ‘extensive reduction of sexval content. 188 Fre “Thogh cried and released Unc wes sent for re-ecmination due to hooliganism atthe time of ts release. Was released two months thereafter uncut OT | Paani ria WET IY Ta Vent content and depiction of rugs vsoge, Wes certified for rease eventually after vrgus cus but could not be released oving to franc ifcuties inured by the Produce by | then 2002 |War ond Peace 7 ang. aur ‘Aman (English / Hind) A documentary exploring the” 1958 | nucear tests by India and Pakistan. Certification was withheld pending 21 cuts. The Bombay High Court eventually permitted release of the flim without any cuts | | |101 Year File Reasons for refusal 7 withholding of certificate 2005 Hawayein [A aia flim set against the backdrop ‘of the 1984 antSkh rots. Was banned from being released in New | Deli, Punjab, Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir 2004 "The Paik Miror| Was refused certification for portraying / Guleabl Aalna | homosexuality and sexual relationship between a transsexval/transvestite ‘and a homosexual person. 2004 Final Solution” "| Based on the 2002 Gujaret ‘commarnal lots, the flm was inlally refused certification owing to. its communal and political content. It was eventually cated after several months due to sustained protests and campaigning ‘against the ban. The flim was Unofficially released in the meantime. bby means of "pirated" compact discs / dial video discs containing the fm.102 Year [Film [ Reasons for refusal / withholding of certificate 2004 |ava Raney De Rien Sepang Wis WES Tor fends n the backdrop of 2 nudes wr breaking ut between India and Folistan, Certcation was withelé subject to cts of about 20 minutes and muting of varous dalogues. The meas refused the cuts and the fm was never released in India 2005 [Arid CEngishy Based Gh @ novel Of the same name, the fllm is a fictionalsed account of a lady discovering her past. and her family’s involvement in the 1964 ant- ‘Sikh lots. Certification was withheld pending cuts, Despite the cis, the fim wes granted only an “AY cetfcation. On an application fo re-| certieation to UA, the seme was refused ries all verbal references to the cots were removed. This was refused andthe fm released with an103 Year | lim Reasons for refusal 7 withholding of certificate A canine. [2005 | Had Anhiad~"YA documentary exploring the religious and potica significance ofthe poems of the 15 Cantuy poet, Kabir. Wes refused oerticatlon unless cuts were made. The fim was eventualy| released in 2011 with the rections of the Delhi High Court, which aso awarded costs of RS. 10,000 to the flmmaker. | 260" [Gana Eval / Bengal) A mused epting He Wie oF | frustrated unsuccessful young man as he tres to come to terms with his seruel maturity, and reaties of tte Was refused certification for its sexual content and never released in India, Bit |The GA wih the Dragon) Tattoo ‘A fcGonal_psychologicaHthiler “in Certification was. withheld pending deletion of scenes Involving rape and torture. The flimmakers refused to|104 Year [Film ‘Reasons for refusal 7 withholding of certieate Eigishy | Sane, and he fi wa nok release in ra. Whit [Chews —|A fim exploing —srpersonal (Gengat) _|reationsip between @ lady and her boytend, who i in search of his tong |tost brother. The film was not allowed theatrical release due to is sewal content 1g [Ptavinum | Caricabon raised Tor desing the Puthranum | christian community ina bad ight — i (Waleyalam) | drama flim about the interpersonal relationship two nuns at a convent. 201s [Papi BORE) A Ty expN BTEC CoMTIES (Malayalam /|on Dalits, women andthe Engist) envionment. Certification was withheld unless scenes depicting Mahatma Gandhi and certain other leaders were removed. Was certified after scenes were blurred and audio105 "Year [Film | Reasons for refusal / withholding] of certificate rs rruted. DOF [Wo Fre Zanes [AN Investigative documehtary about lin the Klling the $1 Lankan Civ War. Certificate |Feds of St was wield pening cts, which the tania flmmaker refysed to accede to, The fm did nat have a theatrical release, but was released on the Intemet by the fmmaker. Oid | Raum Be Heere | Based on the lives of the assassins of | (Puja) —_|former Prime Minister Indire Gandhi, the certification was withdrawn 3 day I prior to Its sated release date for re examination. 01S [50 Shades” oF] A Fm based on the book by the same Grey (English) name, exploring the interpersonal relationship between @ man and a lady who explore sexual paraphiia. Was refused certification despite voluntary | cus by the fimmaker.one 106 [Year [Fim acon Tor retsal 7 witha of certicate ais [Umea Tin ang aM, sare (englsh) [sex teladonstips and Interpersonal poner struggles, Cetfeaton was |refused initially, The. revsing| commitee suggested cus, which the fimmaker refused to acede to, ond preferred an appeal from. The} Apostate Tribunal refused certieton | notwithstanding he cts. TES [Pata Pata [Ain basedon the Sa SSnghan a Feedom moverent ofthe 29905 and vat Puna) | 1990. Certeation was rfised owing to the ln being Yobiectonable”. The tim was evenualy cleared for cericaton by the Appelat Tebural Tas |e Ain Bae on the aes viesernind [tomer cle of amy: Arun Vie. | inde Sutha| Though Inily cere, ts release (euryasy, | was day for sever! months before ‘nally being release.bint 107 Year | Fim’ ‘Reasons for refusal / withholding of certificate Bois |The Painted House (Malayalam / Engish) Rn abo an ages Wika SF ascovery and garing insight on the| basis of his atracton and rlaoship ith lady much younger than him. [the fm wes refused cetcation owing to twee scenes containing uty. Bors [Uda Pan fmm exploring drugs use and abuse. | certcaton vas withheld with 2 | demand for about 90 cuts from the film, based on poltical motives. The film was eventually permitted to be released with nominal modifications by the Bombay High Court. 2016 | Nohalla Ass Wis Sor Te ConTireTES | ‘of the pilgrimage to the city of Keshi.| Cestieaton was denied ing tots commentary on religous sues, and the use of expletives.108 ‘Year | Film Reasons for refusal / withholding of ceriate Sais ad a | Cartan was Tor dan S| teyalam) —_|scne showing preaelescnt cen dancing rakes in eeraton. OEE | RaSh eapa | Certo Tied or aig Wd (lylam) | reign, deletion of pomozexa rons ee. «aaa | area waa Tr aT oF scene showing the protagonist Sting to css et. aT | ranan’ | Caren Tlie Danae Ww cacctami | fet pbc order and sup pce SOET | Ho Tas aan |Crton eisad— pnt derrand for No Objecton Ceticate from P40. | DaiT | pander arenes hose oder Sass my Burga (a), 2(ul), 2(0x), 2¢%), 20), 2601) and | 3() ofthe 1991 Guidelines cing “dhe! |: story Is lady oriented .. there are sexual scenes, abusive words, audio)109 Year | Film Reasons for refusal / withholding of certificate Barnagrephy and a Bi Sve ouch [8k about one perticuar secton of] society. ‘TRUE COPY110 [ANNEXURE P-2 ‘CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE 138” BOARD MEETING OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION HELD AT HOTEL SUN- [N-SAND, MUMBA ON 23°° FEBRUARY, 2015. ‘The 126" Board Meeting of the Central Board of Fim Certfication was held at Hotel Sur-N-Sand, Mumbai and it wes resided over by the Charman, Sh atl Naor. The folowing members ofthe Soar were preset. A, Members of the Board — 1. Stri $e. Shekner, enna 2. Smt. Jeevtha Rajasekar, Hyderabad 3, Shal George Baker, Kokata 4. Dr. Sedhana Kapoor, Bhopal 5, Shei Herenath Chalveborty, Kolkata 6. Shri Ascem Kaistha, New Det 7. Shri Chander Mukhi Sharma, New Delhi 8, Smt. Nandin Sardesei, Mumballane 10, 11. 2. 13, 4 15, a1. ‘Shi Ramesh Petange, Mumbai Dr. Chandraprekash Dwi, Mumba! Prof. Syed Abdul Bari, Gujarat St ta, al ‘Shri Ashoke Pandit, Mumbai Shrt Raghy Menon, Mumbal ‘Smt. Vani Tripathi, Tkoo, New Delhi8 10, Shri Sanja Jaiswal, Sr. Administrative Officer, Mumbal. officers of the Board Shai Shravan Kumar, CEO ‘Shri Raju S. Vaya, RO, Mumbai. ‘Shr Bheswar Gangopachyay, RO, Kolkata, Shri V, Packiisamy, RO, Chennai. Shi T.V.K. Reddy, RO, Hyderabad. Shri Nagendra Semy, RO, Bangalore, ‘Shi Dhiraj Kaka, RO, Debi. ‘Smt. Pratibha A., RO, Thirwananthapuram. ‘Shri Amitabh Sharma, Addl Regional Officer, Kolkata, Dr. Naheed Abii Ms, Amal lana, Deh Shri Saeed Mirza, Mumbat Smt. Arundhati Nag, Mumbei 11210. u sme, Mamang Dal, Guvahati Shei Dipesh Mehta, Mumbai ‘Shei Nik Alva, Mumba ‘Shri Anjum Rajabal, Mumbal ‘Shri Pankaj Vohra, New Delhi Shri B. N. Adhikart, AdGLRO,, Cuttack Smt, Ashiko Lassa, RO, Guwahati 113114 The CEO, Shi Shraven Kumar welcomed the Chairman, Board Members and the Offers of the Board and sald t Is @ proud privege to meet them all CEO requested al the Boar Members ‘and Ofer ofthe Bond to fer thelr introdution. ‘The Board Members and Officers of the Board introduced themselves. ‘The CEO read out the names of the absentees. Smt. Nandini Sardesal, Board Member Informed that most of the absentees (Board Members) have resigned to which the CEO clarified that the Board (CBFC) didn't recelve any official communication about 0. The Board granted leave of absence to those members and Officers, not present. CEO requested the Chairman, Shei Pablaj Nihalani to give his ‘welcome address.115 The Chairman, Shri Pahlaj Nihalani extended a warm welcome to the CEO, Members of the Board and Officers of the Board. He shared his experience of being in the fl industry for 40 years and said he is eagerly looking forward to the new experience of being with the Central Board of Fim Certification as Chairman, He fel that CBFC should take appropriate measures so that there is no agitation and can confer justice to the ‘esponsbitis glven. The Chairman talked about the guideline. He mentioned that the Rules changed in 1983 and subsequent the guidelines were updated in 1997. Films changed with tes but the Act and Guidelines of CBFC are stil the same. He Informed the Board that the then Chairperson, Smt. Sharmila Tagore intiated to change the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the amendment of Acts under process. He informed the Board that In the year 2013, the Ministry has constituted @ Committee of Experts headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal to examine the issues ‘eating to certication of fims and they have submitted the report tothe Ministry. He informed that Inthe Committee of Experts the then Chairpersons, Smt. Sharmila Tagore and Ms. Leela Samson ‘and eminent personality of fim industry, Siri Javed Akhtar were also associated.hee 116 “The Chairman informed the Board that the recommendations for changes In the Act are belng sent tothe Ministry and very soon CBFC wil work according to the new Act but at present, the ‘current Act bas to be followed. He mentioned that the ‘Cinematograph Act Bl wil go to the parliament for approval ‘The Chairmen informed the Board that the guidelines are rot followed In respect of double meaning words. He also Informed about — + the Publicity material being accepted by CBFC from the ‘organizations which are not authorized. + Rush print of fms for examination. He said the above points were taken into consideration and ‘acordinly an important communication Is sent to all ROS and ‘Associations for compliance.117 CEO requested the Board to go through the summary records of the 137" Board Meeting and approve the same. CEO also presented the action taken report, ‘Shei Chandraprakash Dwivedl, Board Member sald since the minutes were of the last Board, the Members ofthe last Board present should approve the same, ‘Smt. Nandini Sardesa, Board Member pointed aut that para 2.6, 2.7, 3.4 of the Minutes of 137° Board Meeting were not complied, ‘She said the crera for selection of panel members should be ralsed as many of the panel members are not competent enough ‘o fil thelr individual reports. She also mentioned that training should be provided to Examining Officers regarding cetication of ‘ms. CEO said the point regarding selection of panel memivers are in the ambit of Mudgal Committee which was consttuted by the118 Ministry ancl will very well be taken up. He also requested to ralse addtional points In the end of the meeting and to abide by the agenda so that the meeting Is concluded on time. CEO requested the Board Members to approve the Annual Report of the Year 2013-2014, Many of the members said the Annual Report may be circulated well in advance so that they can go through the same and ofer their comments. ‘Shri Chandermukhi Sharma also requested the CEO to circulate the agenda ofthe meeting along with the notice ofthe meeting so that they can be well aware of the points to be discussed. CEO directed CBFC officials to send the Annual Report to all the Board Members well in advance. CEO briefed the members about the statistics and the changing trend of fims which are moving towards digalzation. He pointed119 cut the prominent ise in cartfiation of Digits than Calcd fms, CEO seid digtalzaton wil gesr up the process of certification and wil aso make the consttuon of EC/RC more transparent, The applcants can know the statis of thelr applications. EO enightened the Board about the budget of CBFC. He seid the revenue colected though CESS is foward to the Labour Ministry, CEO sed withthe amount of revenue colectes, CBFC can generate resources on its ovn and can be @ sef sisting organization. Restructuring of CBFC can be thought about and since is sattory body, It can only be recommended tothe nse. Sime Nand Sardesal mentoned about the delay In aunty fees, She also mentioned about the money being spent on RC ‘She sald the revenue calleted through application of Revthg Conimitee is way too less In ratio towards money spent on consuitancy fees for the members. Chairperson nated the points raised by Ms. Nandini Sardesai120 St Serdesal mentoned about dubbed fis. She si itis totaly unnecessary to have fur members for dubbed fims asthe real {ob Is only of the language expert: She sugested that the ued fms should be sent tothe respective region as that of the language of te film. CEO informed said as per the Cinematogreph Act dubived flms are to be certified in the same region where the original version was cettiied and the EC elther for fresh or for dubbed has to be comprised of four members and an Examining Officer. Shi TV.K. Reddy, RO Hydersbad and Shri Bhaswar Gangopadhyay, RO Kolkata informed that the dubbed flims are to be cetied at the same region as that of the orginal version, ‘Shti Ashoke Pandit, Board Member suggested to nave regional language knowing members onthe Board, CEO sald jurlsdiction ies with the producer and suggested that dubbed fms should go to a person who Is well versed with the language so that regional sensibites are take care of,124 Shri V, Packrisemy, RO Chennai Informed the Board that ‘ccording to the Important Communication and provisions of the CGnematggraph Act, 1952 dubbed fms are to be certified at the place as that of orginal version, >, Delhi sad there is no permanent staff in CBFC, Oct. CEO requested all the ROs to tak about only poly issues and that other regional isues wil be taken up in the ROs meeting Shi T. V. K. Reddy, RO Hyderabad talked about the Quebec system. He suggested that when a CD Is sealed before issuing CC, anather copy of the same CD can be sealed and issued to the lab by CBFC for distribution so that there will be transparency. He ‘also mentioned that some producers requests for A cericate Instead of UA so that they can interpolate in the fim after cattcation. Shri Ashoke Pandit objected to RO Hyderbad's suggestion| poe 122 Chairman praised the idea and said this isa very valid point and cut piracy. He also Informed the Board about the Important ‘Communication being issued regarding producing certicate of lab/ studio along with the application stating that the film is ready for pubic exhibition as many a times rush print 's being shown to CBFC, ‘Siri Chandraprakash Duived, Board member objected tothe RO Hyderabad’ suggestion and sald thatthe power to cstbute @ fim should not lay wth CBFC and its the prerogative of the producer and also that CBFC should not be the autho tok. He ‘also sald there isn such guideline Inthe Act. He also sald that t is the responsiblity of the producer to exit the fm. Shri ‘Ashoke Pandit agreed to Mr, Dwivedis views, ‘Smt. Vani Tripathi Tikoo, Board Member asked what would be the course of action In case of anomalies being found on part of the Producer and also is it under the ambit of CBFC to curb ft. She suggested that procedures should be followed.123 £0 informed the Board thatthe authority to curb itepoation n fis les withthe State Goverment. He si interpoltion should be reported tothe police and the action is to be taken by the police wich she enforcing autrrty. He as sald CBFC has no ‘control over it. ‘Shri Chandraprakash Oulvedi asked the Board what if the producer does not want to release the film and that the fm is meant for private view. It was informed to him that this issue has been dscussed inthe Nudgal Committee report. ‘Sir M, Nagendrasamy, RO Bangalore talked about Scrabble and Quebec which does not follow the norms as lid In section 6A of the Clnematogreph Act, 1952 and releases uncertified potions of the lin, He als sid as per te rule no neers portion should {90 tothe ab, ‘The Chalrman said the point Is well noted and CBFC should stop ‘accepting applications without lab certificate.od 124 Sit Jeeta Rajasekhar, Board Member informed the Board that rmany a times the rade incorporates visuals of scantily dressed heroines and insets scenes which are not certified by the CBFC. She suggested thatthe CBFC should have the power to take action against the default. The pons raised by her were noted. ‘Shei Mini Bhuta, Board Member asked the Board whether the Board has a role tp scrutiny interpolations and is vigilance the activity ofthe Board. ‘The:Chakman answered that as per ule 37 laid down in the Cnematograph Act 1952 any examining officer or officer of the Board can enter the theatre and can Inspect interpolations. He 2d that for this purpose identity cards have been issued to the members end officers. ‘The Chatman also stated that due to techrology there I tremendous increase la piracy. He also mentioned that in older days due to physical print the producers used to show ‘A’ rated moves in vilges with Incorporated cts. Due to cg content it isnot possible to insert cus except for n rural areas.toe 125 ‘The CEO Informed the Board thatthe implication of violation of rues can be stopped by viglanoe and by the authority given inspect places of exibition. He aso informed thatthe exiiton place Is under the jusdicion of State Government and the sme as to be reported tothe State Govt, Further ation I tobe taken by the poce whic isthe enforcing authority. CBFC has no control over te Interplation. The CEO said @ mechanism has to be involved and CBFC Is ying onthe honesty ofthe Producer. Prot, Syed Andu Ba, Board Member asked whether itis the duty of the CBFC to be viglant CEO answered that the CBFC is 2

You might also like

• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4611)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5813)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (844)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1716)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1850)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)