3. Whether the suspension powered on the movie is justified?

3.1. Certification of film.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner comply with the suspension
powered on the petitioner as unjustified.The British Board of Film Classification
(BBFC) passed the film with a (12A) rating and zero cuts.Such 12A classification
is equivalent to the UA rating used for movies in India.
Section 5A (1)(A) of the act states that (a) the film is suitable for unrestricted public
exhibition, or, as the case may be, for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of
the nature mentioned in the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 4, it shall grant
to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film a “U” certificate or, as the case
may be, a “UA” certificate1; From the above mentioned it is clear that the movie must be
provided with the certificate. But in the Present case, the certificate provided is revoked
which is not justified.
3.2 How come the Certificate can be revoked?
The power to revoke and suspend the film does not lies with the CBFC.
However, CBFC can refuse to issue certification to a film for public exhibition
for violation of Guidelines issued under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act,
1952. But the CBFC grant certificate which means there is nothing against the
cinematography Act in this movie. Hence the revocation of certificate is
unjustified.

3.3 Exercising power of board in granting certification.

The board may refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition. The High court of
jurisdiction at Bombay at bench Aurangabad in a recent case for certification of film
titled Jolly LLB ,the High court went on to direct certain cuts which were not
considered necessary by board3.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned provisions granting the power
of ordering cuts, deletions, alterations in a film along with abuse of power while
exercising the powers given by said act and rule while certifying and / or denying
certification to any applicant film.
Films can be certified without demanding deletions4.
 The above mentioned case law said that there is no power to any one other than
the CBFC to direct the flim makers to cut the scenes of the movie. In the present
case, the public and the person who possess high offices have no authority to
prejudge the movie while it is pending before CBFC. The prejudging of the
movie seems to be justified. While prejudging is unjustified, the riots arise out of
prejudging is also unjustified. Hence the revocation of the certificate by the
Central Govt. because of the prejudged act of protestors is held void and
unjustified.
It is the film makers perogative to make a film of 'aesthetic value' and of
'cinematically good standard'.e film. The same was conferred by BBFC while
responding to the state Association's query and quantified that “freedom of choice
must be respected” and that filmmakers are “free to express narratives based on
historical events” and to interpret them as they wish.They also stated that there was
“nothing” in the film that was “unacceptable” under the 12Acategory.Moreover,the
film was based on a historical evidence and ‘Lajwant’ in the 16th Century by Sufi
poet Malik Aftab Pathan”. Mr. Bhandari further stated, “We don't intend to
hurt anyone’s sentiments”.
A flim based on book were refused certification citing reason that it might hurt
religious sentiments. In the case of crossword Entertainment Pvt Ltd. Vs.
CBFC4, The petitioner has filed a writ petition in high court against the
decision of appellate tribunal confirming the board's refusal. The Court held
that the certificate revoked by the Board is unjustified. Likewise in the present
case the movie “honour of lajwanti” is based on the poem by sufi poet, hence
the certificate must be provided to the petitioner’s film. Hence the suspension
and revocation of the certificate is unjustified.

1.the cinematography act,1952, sec 5(a)(1), act of parliament,1952

2.jolly llb case SC AIR 222

3. prisoner of conscience(1970) case law
4.crossword Entertainment Pvt Ltd. V. CBFC AIR HC 789, 2016