2017 (11) TMI 98 - HC - Indian Laws

Revoke the censor certificate issued by the second respondent for the movie Mersal - petitioner submit that some of the scenes in the movie depicted wrong facts with reference to operation of G.S.T - as wrongly stated that G.S.T. is collected at 28% in India as against 7% in Singapore, but, no free medical aid is provided in India as being done in Singapore - also another factual assertion has been made that GST is not being charged on the liquor - Held that - The petitioner cannot be stated to be a person aggrieved. After all, the second respondent is the competent authority to consider as to whether the film requires a proper certification or not. The certification given by the second respondent has not been put into challenge. In a matured democracy, view of the minority has to be allowed to be expressed. The question as to whether the said view is palatable or not can never be the one for debate. We are unable to see any non-application of mind involved as the petitioner has failed to substantiate it. Much has been said on Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. Section 6(1) of the Act speaks about the suo motu powers to be exercised by the first respondent, that too after due notice. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon it. Section 6(2) of the Act speaks about an interim measure, that too, for a period of two months from the date of the Notification and thus has no application. This provision also mandates a prior notice. We do not find any material to press into service the aforesaid provisions in a case of this nature. The petitioner has rushed to this Court in a hurry after giving a representation on 20.10.2017 Friday at about 8 p.m. The writ petition was filed on 23.10.2017 (Monday). Therefore, without even waiting for the first respondent to act, even for exercising his power, if otherwise exercisable under Section 6(2) of the Act, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Even on merits, we do not find any case made out. The depiction in the movie is nothing more than an expression. It is for the movie goers to look it in their own perspective. Nobody can be forced to see the movie. Ultimately, it is the choice of an individual. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition seeking revocation of censor certificate for the movie 'Mersal' due to alleged portrayal of wrong facts regarding GST, sovereignty of the country, and non-application of mind by the certifying authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a pro bono publico petition seeking the revocation of the censor certificate issued for the movie 'Mersal' by the second respondent. The petitioner argued that certain scenes in the movie depicted incorrect facts related to the operation of GST, such as misrepresenting the GST rate in India compared to Singapore and the treatment of liquor under GST. It was contended that these inaccuracies could be construed as an affront to the sovereignty of the country and mislead the general public. The petitioner invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to support the request for revocation.

2. The court noted that the petitioner, not being a person aggrieved, lacked standing to challenge the certification granted by the second respondent. It emphasized the importance of allowing minority views to be expressed in a democratic society, even if they may be unpalatable to some. The court found no evidence of non-application of mind by the certifying authority and dismissed the petitioner's arguments on this ground.

3. The court delved into the provisions of Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. It clarified that Section 6(1) pertains to suo motu powers of the first respondent after due notice, which were not applicable in this case. Section 6(2) deals with interim measures for a limited period and also requires prior notice, which was not relevant here. The court concluded that these provisions did not support the petitioner's case.

4. Criticizing the haste with which the petitioner approached the court without allowing the first respondent to act, the court highlighted the need for due process and patience in such matters. It reiterated that the content of a movie is a form of expression and interpretation left to the viewers' discretion. The court distinguished the present case from instances of extreme vulgarity or obscenity, emphasizing that individual choice governs the decision to watch a movie.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. It referenced a previous decision to contextualize the present case and emphasized that the certifying authority had considered the content of the movie before granting the certificate. The court ordered the closure of the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.