4.

Whether there is infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by constitution of

India, if any?

4.1. Whether the fundamental right of Right to Freedom of speech and Expression is
infringed?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act of the Central Govt.
i.e The revocation of certificate provided by CBFC after getting order from the appellate
tribunal ,is in violation of petitioner’s Right to Freedom of speech and Expression guaranteed
under Art.19(1) (a) of the constitution of India.

Art.19(1) (a) of the Constitution states that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech
and expression”.

The Right to freedom of speech and expression is one of the fundamental right guaranteed by the
constitution of India. “Freedom of speech and expression” means the right to express one’s own
convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth , writing ,printing ,pictures , flims or any
other mode. In the present case ,Mr.Bhandhari made a flim as a cinematic tribute to “Lajwanti
devi” .It is based on the historical evidence and epic poem “Lajwanti” in the 16 th century by the
sufi poet Malik Aflab pathan. The petitioner applied for the certificate and cleared the CBFC
rules and regulations then the board issued the certificate . But on 28th jan 2021 ,this certificate
was suspended and revoked by the Central Govt. By the virtue of power reserved under the
Cinematography Act,1952 . This act of central government infringned ,the petitioner’s right to
freedom of speech and Expression .The moment the right to freedom of speech and expression is
atrophied, not only the right but also the person having the rights gets into semi coma1. The
BBFC said that “freedopm of choice must be respected” and that bthe flim makers are “free to
express narratives based on hiostorical events” .By saying this the BBFC cleared the movie with
12A ratings which denotes that there was nothing in the flim that was “unacceptable” under
12A category. Hence there is nothing in the flim is obscene. It is supported by the reporters who
seen the movie even before the certificate is issued by the board.

1)Adarsh Co-operative housing society v. Union of india AIR 2018 SC 1430 pp.1433,1435
In the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjai Leela Bhansali the court held that – the CBFC is
expected to take decision with utmost objectivity as per the provision contained in the act ,the
rules framed there under and the guidelines. During the pendency of the matter for grant of
certification, comment on the issue by responsible people in power or public offices is a violation
of law2 . Alike the above mentioned case prejudging the movie “honour of lajwanti” could be
considered as the violation of law . The spread of title song “jhummar re” results in national wide
distress and serious violent demonstrations by the people. The Central government held it as a
reason for the suspension and revocation of the certificate. In the case of S.Rangarajan v. P.
Jagjivan Ram, the Madras HC revoked the ‘U’ certificate issued to a flim on the ground that the
exhibition of the flim was likely to cause public disorder and violence . On appeal by the
producer of the flim and the Union of India, the supreme e court reversed. The court not only
reiterated the importance of the freedom of speech and expression and the role of flim as a
legitimate media for its exercise, but also held that if exhibition of the flim “cannot be validly
restricted under Art. 19(2) it cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and
processions or threat of violence”3. It added4

It is the duty of the state to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty
guaranteed against the state. The state cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience
problem. It is obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.

This positive aspect of the right to freedom of speech and expression is an important innovation
by the court in this case5. This position has been reiterated in another case in which exhibition of
a flim, which was cleared by the censor Board, could not be suspended in a stste on the ground
of likelihood of breach of the peace.6

2.Manoharlal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhanshali, AIR 2018 SC 86 p.88.

3. S.Rangarajan v. P.Jagjivan Ram ,(1982) ,2, SCC 574.

4.Ibid, 599

5.see,Christian Starck, Freedom of Expression and Academic freedom: Background and formation of legal
principles and Torstein, Free speech in Germany; M.P.Singh (Ed.),Comparative constitutional law,193,196,231 and
235 res (1989).

6.Praklash Jha Productions v. Union of India,2011,8 ,SCC372

Hence the reason mentioned for the revocation of certificate is invalid because in the above
mentioned case the Hon’ble Court held that it was the duty of the state to maintain law and
order and to protect the freedom of expression.

4.2. Whether the Fundamental Right of Right to freedom of business is infringed?

It is humbly submitted before the supreme court that the act of Central Govt. / The
Licensing Authority i.e. The revocation and suspension of the certificate was the infringement of
the Fundamental Right ( Right to carry trade and Business) guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of
the constitution.

Art. 19(1)(g) states that “all the citizen has the right to carry any profession, trade or business”.

In the present case, the petitioner ‘ Mr. Bhandhari’ was a professional flim producer and director.
According to the Art. 19 (1) (g) of the constitution ,Mr.Bhandhari also has the right to carry any
profession. In order to this, the profession of the petitioner was the production of flim and make
profit from exhibiting the flim. Here due to the revocation of the certificate , the petitioner can’t
able to make profit by exhibiting the movie in cinema halls and etc. Hence the Fundamental
Right of Right to carry any profession, trade or business is violated.

4.3 . Whether the Fundamental Right of Right to Life and Liberty is infringed?

It is humbly submitted before the SC that the act of revocation and suspension of the
certificate was the infringement of the Right to Life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the constitution

Art. 21 of the constitution states that “Protection of life and personal liberty no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by Law.”

When a issue affects the right of freedom of Speech and Expression and the right to carry any
profession guaranteed by Art. 19, it also ultimately affects the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed by the Art.21 of the constitution.

The inter relationship between the Art. 19 and Art. 21 can be explained as follows; In Menaka
Gandhi’s case, it was held that Art. 21 is controlled by Art.19, that is, it must satisfy the
requirement of Art.!9 also. The court observed that the law must therefore now be settled that
Art. 21 does not exclude Art.19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for
depriving a person of personal liberty , and there is consequently no infringement of the
fundamental right conferred by Art. 21, such a law in so far as it abridges or take away any
fundamental Right under Art.19 would have to meet the challenges of that Art. 19. Thus a law
depriving a person of “personal liberty” has not only to stand the test of Art. 21 But it must
stand the test of Art.19 and Art.14 of constitution.7 From the above mentioned case it is clear
that the right to life and personal liberty includes right to speech and expression and Right to
carry any profession. Hence in the present case , The petitioner’s right to speech and expression ,
Right to carry any profession and the right to life and personal liberty are infringed by the
suspension and revocation of certificate powered by the Central Govt.

7.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,AIR1978 SC 597