2007 (4) TMI 726 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to the words and certified by the Central Board of Film Certification in Regulation 10(d) and (e) - (i) Whether restricting the entry, for National Film Awards, to only films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of film makers, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution - HELD THAT - . The government is not interested in evaluating or giving an award to a film which may never be seen by the public, or at all events never be seen in an 'uncensored' form. Its object is to select the best from among those which the public can see and enjoy or gain knowledge. The said policy neither relates to nor interferes with the right of a film maker either to make films, or to apply for certificate or to exhibit the films. There is nothing illogical, unreasonable or arbitrary about a policy to select only the best from among films certified for public exhibition. We cannot, in judicial review, change that policy by requiring the Government to select the best from among 'films made' instead of 'films made and certified for public exhibition'. We, therefore, hold that the requirement that films should have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2005 for entry for the 53rd National Film Awards is not an unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of the respondents or other film makers. (ii) Whether the Directorate, having permitted entry of films in an uncensored format for awards in Non-Commercial Film Festivals, should do so in respect of National Film Awards also - HELD THAT - When the purpose and object of Film Festivals and National Film Awards are completely different, the conditions that are made applicable, or the exemptions that are granted, in respect of Film Festivals, cannot automatically be applied to National Film Awards. The two being unequal and dissimilar, the question of applying the same standards or norms does not arise. Nor can application of different norms to Film Festivals and National Film Awards, lead to a complaint of discrimination. Applying different yardsticks to different events, to achieve different objects cannot be considered as discriminatory. (iii) Whether exempting films made by Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan from the requirement of certification by the Board, while requiring certification by the Board in the case of others, is discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - In this case, we have already found that the NFA policy restricting the entry to only films certified by the Board is valid and does not violate Article 19(1)(a). It therefore follows that a film maker does not have any right to claim that he is entitled to enter his films without certification by the Board. When a film maker complains of discrimination on the ground that films made by Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan have been exempted from the requirement of certification, and claims similar exemption, the question that requires examination is whether the exemption that has been granted to Film Institutes and Doordarshan is legal. If it is illegal, he cannot claim a similar illegal exemption in his favour. CONCLUSION - A film-maker can challenge an illegal exemption in favour of Film Institutes and Doordarshan under clauses (f) and (g) of Regulation 10, but cannot claim a similar exemption by placing reliance on such illegality. Therefore the challenge to the words and certified by the Central Board of Film Certification in Regulation 10(d) and (e) has no merit. The respondents have not challenged the validity of Regulation 10(f) and (g) granting exemption to films made by Film Institutes or films entered by Doordarshan. Therefore, no relief can be granted to respondents in that behalf. Thus, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the Judgment of the High Court except the direction to permit entry of non- feature films in digital format.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restricting the entry for National Film Awards to only films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification.
2. Whether the Directorate should permit entry of uncensored films for National Film Awards as it does for Non-Commercial Film Festivals.
3. Discrimination in exempting films made by Film Institutes and entered by Doordarshan from certification requirements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restricting Entry to Certified Films:
The respondents argued that requiring certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for films entered in the National Film Awards (NFA) is an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They contended that films are works of art and should be allowed to compete without censorship, similar to entries in international film festivals.

The court held that the policy of restricting entries to certified films is a matter of government policy aimed at encouraging the production of films of aesthetic and technical excellence. The policy ensures that only films intended for public exhibition, and thus capable of being seen by the public, are considered. The court emphasized that judicial review of government policy is limited to checking for violations of fundamental rights or statutory provisions and cannot interfere with the policy's wisdom or appropriateness. Therefore, the requirement for certification was deemed not an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the respondents.

2. Permitting Uncensored Films for National Film Awards:
The respondents argued that since the Directorate allows films to be entered in non-commercial film festivals without CBFC certification, the same should apply to the NFAs.

The court clarified that the objectives of film festivals and the NFAs are different. Film festivals aim to provide a platform for filmmakers to exchange ideas and market their films, while the NFAs aim to promote national integration and unity by recognizing films of aesthetic and technical excellence. Given these differing objectives, the court found it reasonable for the government to have different policies for the two events. Therefore, the policy requiring certification for NFAs was not deemed discriminatory or arbitrary.

3. Discrimination in Certification Exemptions:
The respondents claimed that exempting films made by Film Institutes and entered by Doordarshan from certification requirements while requiring certification for others is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court noted that the exemptions granted to Film Institutes and Doordarshan were not justified. The exemption for Film Institutes assumed compliance with certification principles without requiring actual certification. Similarly, the exemption for Doordarshan was based on a 1984 notification, which was not relevant for film awards. The court concluded that these exemptions were illegal and could not be the basis for other filmmakers to claim similar exemptions. However, since the respondents did not challenge the validity of the exemptions themselves, no relief could be granted on this ground.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's judgment except for the direction to permit the entry of non-feature films in digital format. The requirement for certification by the CBFC for films entered in the NFAs was upheld as a valid policy decision of the government. The exemptions granted to Film Institutes and Doordarshan were deemed illegal, but this did not entitle other filmmakers to similar exemptions.