9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpetent 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S.T. It has been 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. The fact remains that the slab has been fixed for collection of G.S.T. upto a maximum of 28%. Similarly, another factual assertion has been made that GST is not being charged on the liquor. These wrong facts as portrayed in the film would constitute affront to the sovereignty of the country. The film being the powerful medium, the general public, would be carried away by the wrong message sought to be conveyed. The second respondent ought not to have given the certification, which also involves non-application of mind. Therefore, this is a fit case where a direction w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven for exercising his power, if otherwise exercisable under Section 6(2) of the Act, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 6.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. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in A.Arulmozhi Vs. Government of India ((2005) 3 MLJ 497) has to be seen in its own context. After all, we are not dealing with the case of extreme vulgarity or obscenity as against the opinion expressed by one of the characters in a movie, which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
