JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner-Anirudh Prasad Yadav alias Sadhu Yadav, said to be an Ex. M.L.C. and sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, State of Bihar has approached this Court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued imposing ban on screening of motion picture "Ganga-Jal" produced and directed by Mr. Prakash Jha-opposite party No. 7.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a sitting M.L.A. and holding various posts in different capacities, enjoys a very good reputation in the country. He also claims himself to be the brother of Chief Minister of Bihar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite party No. 7 aired the advertisement of Film "Ganga Jal" on 23-8-2003 through the capsule/trailer in various electronic channels which includes Sony, Zee Cinema, Set Max, Star Gold, Aaj-Tak, Star Plus and others. In the picture, one of the main characters i.e. Villain has been named as Sadhu Yadav. The role of villain is said to have been performed by Lalit Mohan Joshi. It is alleged that the producer and Director of the Film. Mr. Prakash Jha originally belongs to a neighbouring district of Champaran, Bihar, from where the petitioner is a elected leader and in order to malign and demolish the image of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner (Sadhu Yadav) has been used. It has been further alleged that the petitioner had watched the advertisement/capsule/trailer on TV, in which following words have been uttered while threatening Sadhu Yadav by the Hero of the Film, who has played the role of an IPS Officer, "IS GALATFAHMI ME MAT RAHNA SADHU YADAV HAMARI CHAI BAHUT KADUI HOTI HAI".
4. Sri S.P. Srivastava, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has argued with vehemence that this writ petition is not maintainable at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, as no cause of action has accrued within the territorial limits of this Court. Petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Bihar and is sitting M.L.A of Bihar and mere mentioning of local address will not create the Jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the place where the petitioner has watched the Capsule-Trailor and the documents he got through the Internet has also not been disclosed in the writ petition.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further stated that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to say that name of the villain in the Film has deliberately been shown as Sadhu Yadav. According to him there may be similarity of a name or character in a Film or Fiction but that cannot be taken as ground for restraining from exhibiting or printing a Film or Fiction. According to him, if the petitioner thinks or believe that the Producer and Director of the Film has used his name with an intent to malign or damage his image, this will be an act of defamation and the writ petition is not a remedy in such matters. Lastly, Sri Srivastava argued that the purpose of filing this petition is only to get publicity and to come in limelight.
6. Learned counsel for Union of India has also argued that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, which is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952. He also adopted the arguments advanced by the Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. that this Courts lacks Jurisdiction as the petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Bihar and nowhere in the writ petition there is averment to the effect that the petitioner has watched the Capsule/Trailer of the Film Gangajal within the territorial limits of this Court.
7. An application for impleadment by M/s. Khandelwal Exhibitors, the Firm involved in the business of Cinema of booking and taking cinema on Theatre Hire for film has been made. According to learned counsel for the applicant that the Firm has entered into an agreement on 8th August, 2003 with Bobby Art International for the exhibition of Film "Gangajal" at Anand Cinema and further the Film is being exhibited after getting a certificate from Censor Board of Film Certification.
8. It is settled law that the right of a citizen to exhibit films in Cinema Hall or on TV is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which can be curtailed only under circumstances as set out in Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution. This right, Is akin to the right of a citizen to publish his view through any other media such as newspapers, magazines, advertisement, hoardings etc.
9. At the very out set, we may point out here that in order to curb cinema menace and for streamlining the machinery for the examining of the films Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 have been enacted. Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 lays down the procedure for dealing of a complaint and empowers the Central Government to pass appropriate orders thereon.
10. No doubt, the cinema is a great instrument for public good and entertainment if geared to social ends and can be a public curse if directed to anti-social objectives. We may mention here that life itself is an intermixture of good and evil and of light and shadow. It is impossible nor is desirable to ask a writer or a producer to be like a sage to be circumspect when depicting the evils and all go out when dealing with good.
11. Freedom of speech and expression is a natural right, which are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The words "freedom of speech and expression" must, therefore, be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one's view by words of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to propagate one's views through the print media or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this free country, therefore, has the right to air his or her views through the printing and/or the electronic media subject to the course of permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
12. In Odyssey Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana. (1988) 3 SCC 410 : (AIR 1988 SC 1642), a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed to restrain the authorities from telecasting the serial "Honi Anhony" on the plea that it was likely to spread false and blind beliefs and superstition amongst the members of the public. The High Court by an interim injunction restrained the authorities from telecasting the serial, which led the producer thereof to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the conditions imposed by the Doordarshan being a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression could be curtailed only under circumstances set out in Article 19(2) and in no other manner.
13. In Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 668 : (AIR 1988 SC 775), a petition was filed to restrain the screening of the serial "Tamas" on the ground that it violated Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution and Section 5-B of the Act. Based on the novel of Bhisma Sahni this serial depicted the events that took place in Lahore immediately before the partition of the country. Two Judges of the Bombay High Court saw the serial and rejected the contention that it propagates the cult of violence. Ultimately the matter went to the Apex Court. The Apex Court upheld the findings of the Bombay High Court that the serial viewed in its entirety is capable of creating a lasting Impression of this message of peace and co-existence and there is no fear of the people being obsessed, overwhelmed or carried away by scenes of violence or fanaticism shown in the film.
14. The High Court of Calcutta in the recent appeal (G.A. No. 2310/03 decided on 16-7-2003 (reported in 2003 (10) Ind LD 225) of Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara India Entertainment Ltd., filed in respect of a serial called "Karishma-The Miracle or Destiny" while referring to a decision of Queen's Bench rendered in Fraser v. Evans reported at 1969 (1) QB 349 observed as under :
"We do not know what the serials are going to be like. We do not know the situations, which will be shown. We do not know the scenes which will be displayed. We do not know how the characters will be portrayed. We do not even know the details of the story-line. All that we know is that one of the team of persons engaged in production, which is quite a large team, has said to be a certain fishing journalist that there are some characters, which are as per the book of the plaintiff No. 1 and that the serials have been based on the book and Indianised and adapted.
15. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Bihar and his place of work is also the State of Bihar. It has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to how and from when he is residing at Lucknow. Mere mentioning the local address as C/o Sunil Singh son of Sri Ram Ashrey Prasad Singh, C-1144 Indira Nagar, Lucknow will not inspire confidence of this Court that cause of action has arisen to the petitioner within the territorial limits of this Court. On the contrary it can be safely presumed, that petitioner being the resident of Bihar must have seen the capsule/Trailor in the State of Bihar and have assessed the documents annexed with the writ petition through Internet in that State. We do not hesitate in saying that local address has been given by the petitioner with the sole intention to create jurisdiction of the Court, which is more serious act than bench hunting.
16. Before summarizing, we would like to comment that the petitioner himself has not sworn the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. As a matter of fact, the affidavit has been sworn by one Sunil Singh who claims himself to be "pairokar" of the petitioner. Almost all the paragraphs i.e. paragraphs 1 to 16 of the writ petition have been sworn by said Sunil Singh on his personal knowledge. We have gone through the allegations made in the writ petition and are of the opinion that certain allegations/averments cannot be said to be in the personal knowledge of Sunil Singh, which at best can be said to be within the personal knowledge of the petitioner.
17. Petitioner has failed to show that any fundamental right guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India has been infringed by naming Villain of the Film as "Sadhu Yadav" by the Producer & Director of the Film. Any resemblance with any character of the Film, cannot be said to be intentionally filmed on the life of petitioner. Further except the name, petitioner has failed to point out any other similarities, which the petitioner possess, has also been depicted in the Film. Petitioner has further failed to demonstrate before this Court as to how he had come to the conclusion that there is substantial similarity between the petitioner and the role played by Lalit Mohan Joshi. He has further failed to satisfy us that the exhibition of the Film "Gangajal" will prima facie lead to damage his reputation and will sabotage the political and social image of the petitioner. Needless to mention here that in these days almost in all the Films and Serials a notice of caution is exhibited that resemblance of any character with any person or accident is not intentional and is merely a coincidence. Even then, if the petitioner thinks that his name has been used in order to defame him, efficacious and effective remedy is available to him but the forum, which has been chosen by the petitioner, is not the appropriate forum and the writ petition is not maintainable.
18. From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also from the averments made in the writ petition, it clearly emerges out that the foundation of petitioner's case is defamation for which, as stated above, he has a remedy and he can approach the same, if he is so advised. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution are going to be infringed by release and exhibit of the aforesaid motion picture.
19. For the reasons indicated above, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition. Costs easy.
21. Application for impleadment made by M/s. Khandelwal Exhibitors, as referred above, stands disposed of accordingly.