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?

No, there is no infringement of right to freedom. 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 not 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”. But this right is subject to limitations imposed under 19(2) which empowers
the state to put ‘reasonable restrriction’ on the following grounds - security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order , decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation,
incitement to offence and integrity and sovereignty of India. The term ‘reasonable restriction’ in
article 19(6) means that the restrictions imposed on the person in the enjoyment of his right
should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the
public.

In the present case, the certificate issued under the cinematography act is suspended and revoked
on 18th jan 2021 because of the national wide distress and the depiction of Rani Lajwati was
seems to be obscene. In this movie Rani Lajwanti’s dance in front of the people is not based
based on the culture of Vajvants. The people of Vajputani consider the dance steps of actress
Nilima as an obscene. Hence the Central Govt. revoke the certificate. This revocation of
certificate does not violate the right to speech and expression. It is supported by the following
case – in the case of Bobby Art International v. Om pal singh Hoon1 popularly known as “Bandit
queen case” . The respondent filed a writ petition in the Court for quashing the certificate of
exhibition given to the flim “Bandit queen” and restraining its exhibition in india.the flim was
presented for the certification to the Censor board. The examining committee of the Censopr
Board refered it to the Revision Committee which recommended that the flim be granted an “A”

1.t he Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC 1.

certificate subject to certain modifications and cuts. In this flim a poor village girl was stripped
naked and made to fetch water from the them well under the gaze of the villagers. This scene
took place in the Flim ,The Censor Board made recommendations to cut the scene. The producer
of the movie challenged this with the writ petition that the fundamental right of right to speech
and expression is violated but the court held that the movie contains Obscene. Hence it can’t be
considered as a violation of Right of Speech and Expression. The counsel humbly submits that
the there is no infringement of fundamental right of speech and 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 not 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.
Here, none would say the petitioner not to produce flim or direct flims. The Central Govt. only
suspended the revoke the license of the obscene flim. The charges that the violation of right to
carry any profession ,trade or business is baseless. Hence The counsel held that here is no
infringement of fundamental right to freedom of trade and business in the present case

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 no 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.”

Even though a issue affects the right of freedom of Speech and Expression and the right to carry
any profession guaranteed by Art. 19,it does not affects the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed by the Art.21 of the constitution.
It is supported by the following case -In the case A.k. Gopalan the SC held that Art. 19 has no
application to laws depriving a person of his life and Personal Liberty enacted under Art.21 of
the constitution. It was held that Art.19 and Art. 21 dealt with different subjects.Article 19 deals
with certain six freedom important individual rights of personal liberty and the restriction that
can be imposed on them.Art. 21, on the other hand, enables the state to deprive individual of his
life and personal liberty in accordance with procedure established by law. Thus, the view taken
by the majority in A.K.Gopalan case was that so long as a law of preventive detention satisfies
the requirement of Art.22, it would not be required to meet the challenges of Art.19.

From the above mentioned the case it is clear that there is no relation between Art.19 and
Art.21. Eventhough Art.19 is violated Art.21 is not violated accordingly .But in the present case,
Neither Art.19 nor Art.21 is violated. Hence the counsel held that the fundamental Rights of
Mr.Bhandhari has not been violated.