The petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution by a practicing advocate of this Court claiming to be a tax payer "who has a vital interest in spiritual belief". The petitioner seeks a mandamus : (i) for the deletion of an objectionable dialogue and scene in the cinematographic film "Singham Returns" and (ii) an order to restrain the release of the film. The film is slated to be released on 15 August 2014.
The entire basis of the petition is founded on a promo which has been uploaded on You Tube. According to the petitioner, this trailer is objectionable and has been designed to hurt the sentiments of Hindus inasmuch as, the hero of the film, a part depicted by Ajay Devgan, confronts a Hindu saint with the following dialogue :-
"eSa rsjk nks dkSM+h dk izopu lquus ugha vk;k gwWaA"
According to the petitioner, the word "Pravachan" is a Hindu religious discourse and by attributing the adjectives "Do Kaudi" to a religious discourse by a Hindu saint, the film lowers respect for the religion.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent which is the Co-Producer and Distributor of the film. The counter contains a statement to the effect that the trailer of the film was certified by the Board of Film Certification constituted under section 3 of the Cinematographic Act, 1952 on 10 July 2014. After the trailer was exhibited in some theaters, protests were made by religious groups specifically with reference to the dialogue in respect of which a complaint has been made in these proceedings. The third respondent suggested cuts and changes in the film while granting a certificate for the exhibition of the film. Among the cuts as suggested was the removal of the word "Pravachan" as well as a removal of expression "Do Kaudi". The film has been certified on 8 August 2014 subject to seven cuts. Among the seven cuts, two are specifically with reference to the dialogue which has been complained of in these proceedings. Hence, it has been stated that it was after the Co-Producer made changes and cuts in the film that a final certification was granted on 8 August 2014. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the dialogue of the film which is now going to be released on 15 August 2014 does not have words as alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The film has a UA certification. Finally, it has been stated that if an interim order or an order of injunction is issued by this Court, that would result in irreparable loss because upon release of the film in the Middle-Eastern countries which is slated to take place on 14 August 2014, pirated CDs and DVDs of the film would be made available in the other territories including India and the film can never be monetized through theatrical mode of exploitation.
The clarification in the counter affidavit should, in our view, meet the grievance of the petitioner, even on the assumption that such a grievance has substance. The film has been duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification on 8 August 2014. The Central Board of Film Certification, which is constituted under section 3 of the Cinematographic Act, 1952, is an expert statutory body.
The fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) provided in a law enacted in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The petition essentially is based on an isolated dialogue which has been picked out from the film. No literary work can be assessed on the basis of an isolated sentence. The use of language and expression has to be understood in the context of the theme of a literary work. Reading out of context a dialogue in a film or a sentence in a book, cannot be used as a basis for striking down the publication of the book or exhibition of a film or for that matter for questioning the legality of a certificate which has been granted, as in the present case by the Board. If such an exercise is to be made permissible, freedom of speech and expression, which is one of most precious rights of every citizen of India, would be at the mercy of such objections. Film makers and the artists must have a broad field of creativity protected by the Constitution, a creativity which is not circumscribed by such objections. It has now become a common practice for injunction applications to be moved before the Court on the eve of the release of a cinematographic film. Promos and trailers receive wide publicity well in advance. The content and the theme of the film is widely publicised in newspapers and journals. The Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution must be careful in entertaining requests for granting a stay at such a belated stage. Arrangements are made for the distribution of the film well in advance, particularly in today's context where the distribution of films in a digitised format takes place in different territories across the world at or about the same time. Any interference by the Court is liable to seriously damage the production of the film and to destroy the legitimate expectation of the artists and of those who have contributed to the making of the film.
The petition is based on a perceived insult to religion merely on the basis of a stray sentence in the film. The producer of the film who has appeared before the Court has submitted that looking at the film in its entirety, it would be apparent that there is not even a remote insult to a religion since the main proponent of the film is an investigating officer, who is but discharging his duties as an officer.
For the purposes of the present case, it is not necessary for the Court to delve into that aspect any further. The clarification which has been issued in the counter would, to our mind, sufficiently allay the apprehension even in regard to the stray sentence on which the petition is founded. Insofar as the rest of the film is concerned, there are neither any pleadings nor any material before the Court to allow the Court to pass such sweeping orders, the consequence of which would be to seriously impinge upon the fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
For these reasons, we find no reason to entertain the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.08.2014 GS (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)