Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a mandamus that the respondents be directed not to release and screen the film titled as 'Aligarh'.
The contention which is being raised in this writ petition is by a press reporter who had allegedly participated in a sting operation against a Professor of the Aligarh Muslim University to depict his alleged unlawful gay relationship and indulgence in homosexual acts inside the campus of the University in a residential accommodation.
The said Professor lodged an F.I.R. in which the petitioner was also named and the petitioner is facing prosecution for having invaded the right of privacy of the said Professor as well as other offences under the IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the screening and exhibition of the film shall directly damage the reputation of the petitioner as also affect the criminal trial which is pending against him.
It is under these circumstances, a prayer has been made for issuing a mandamus, as framed in the present writ petition.
We have heard Sri Subhash Chandra Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimal Srivastava for the Union of India.
It appears that the allegations of the petitioner are basically an apprehension about affecting the trial of the petitioner in the criminal case. We may observe that the depicting of film has a disclaimer and even otherwise the story of the film is not alleged to be a part of the evidence or the charge sheet in order to prosecute the petitioner. Consequently, the film not being evidence in relation to the criminal trial, we do not find any reason for apprehension of the petitioner to seek the relief as prayed for.
The second contention of the petitioner is about his own reputation as a reporter. A correspondent or reporter has the risky job of reporting such news and incidents that may or may not be conducive news for dissemination in the society. A reporter carrying a news and a correspondent forwarding it to the editor always runs the risk of either trenching upon anybody's prestige or depicting a story which otherwise may allure a film company to adopt the same. This may give rise to legal issues even if it has a larger social dimension in public interest.
In the present case, the petitioner has undertaken that risk himself as alleged in the F.I.R. lodged by the Professor. The petitioner has taken a defence that he was not involved in the same. This is clearly a subject matter of evidence and, therefore, we refrain from commenting upon the status of the alleged investigation or participation of the petitioner in the aforesaid incident, the same being subject to trial.
Consequently, once the film has been cleared by the censor board and it has been allowed to be screened, we do not find any such material on record so as to interfere in the matter and to stop the screening or exhibition of the film by way of a mandamus. The film having been made on a story which appears to be more of a moral and social debate with regard to protection of the right to privacy as against gay rights is, therefore, not a matter which can be the basis for judicial scrutiny in the present case in order to restrain the screening of the film.
We thus, do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
The rejection of this writ petition will, however, not affect either the trial or prejudice any other rights of defence of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.2.2016 MFA/-
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4154 of 2016 Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The writ petition is dismissed vide our orders of date, on separate sheets.
Order Date :- 29.2.2016 MFA/-