You are on page 1of 2

Issue1

It is humbly submitted that the order of CBFC, denying certification to the film 'Being Gay’,
is neither arbitrary and nor it violates of fundamental rights of the Appellants. CBFC has
followed the due procedure and guidelines of the Cinematograph act, 1952 and denied the
certificate as the concerned film violates the clause1(i) and the clause2(viii), caluse2(xii),
clause2(xiii), caluse2(xviii) of the guidelines mentioned under the section 5B of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952. Also, the decision of the CBFC was affirmed by the FCAT which
is the statutory body for hearing the appeals against the orders of CBFC. .

Further the fundamental rights guaranteed by the part III of the Indian Constitution are not
absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned under the Article 19(2). Section
5B of the Cinematograph act echoes article 19(2) and therefore film certification if done as
per the cinematgraph act and its guidelines is very well justified and does not curtail or
violate the fundamental rights of the film makers. In the present case, the CBFC has aptly
followed the cinematograph act, 1952 and the guidelines mentioned in it. Therefore, it is
humbly submitted that in the present case the CBFC has rightly denied the certification to the
film “Bieng Gay” and in doing so it has not violated the fundamental rights of the appellants.

Issue3

It is humbly submitted that the online release of the trailer of the film ‘Being Gay” by the
Appellants is illegal.

The word “Illegal” has been defined in the section 43 of the IPC which states that the word
“illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or
which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be “legally bound to do”
whatever it is illegal in him to omit. In the present case, since the content of the film was
alleged to be obscenec and vulgar, the appellants by uploading the trailer online have
committed a offence ounishable unfder the section 67 of the IT Act and therefore the act of
appellants is illegal.

You might also like