Delhi High Court: Petitioner, a person with disability, filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the actions of Respondent 1, Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd., in producing a movie ‘Aankh Micholi’ (‘Movie’), in which, allegedly derogatory and discriminatory remarks were made against the Persons with Disabilities (‘PwDs’). Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent 2, Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’), to include an expert on the subject matter of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPWD Act’) within the Board of Film Certification under Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (‘1952 Act’) and advisory panel constituted under Section 5 of said Act. The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.*, and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.*, dismissed the petition and held that there were no grounds or legal basis in the petition justifying the said relief and the Central Government had already issued guidelines under Section 5-B(2) of the 1952 Act, to CBFC for the purpose of sanctioning film, which included guidelines for handicapped persons.
Petitioner submitted that Respondent 1 in its movie portrayed several characters suffering from physical disability as stooge and anomalous to common people. The movie included scenes and characterization that were not only distasteful but also reinforced negative stereotypes. He submitted that the movie was violative of Section 3(3) of the RPWD Act. He stated that the movie was released on 03-11-2023 and had since flopped at the box office and after viewing the movie’s trailer, petitioner issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 who denied the contentions citing creative freedom.
Respondent 1 contended that in films to address social evils, it was necessary to depict such social evils itself to bring out their consequences and the overall message of the movie and the core storyline was centered around overcoming disability.
The Court noted that petitioner after receipt of respondent’s reply dated 17-10-2023 and release of the movie on 03-11-2023 did not raise any further grievance with Respondent 1 with respect to the movie until filing of the present petition. The Court further noted that petitioner had not disputed the explanation offered by Respondent 1 in its reply contending that the overall message of the film was centered around overcoming the disability or that the movie depicted the strength of the characters therein who were suffering from disabilities. Therefore, the primary challenge to the movie on the ground that it was offensive to the sensibilities was not established.
Further, the Court noted that CBFC had granted the movie ‘U’ certification for unrestricted public exhibition and Respondent 1 in its reply dated 17-10-2023 referred to CBFC guidelines issued by the Central Government pursuant to Section 5-B(2) of the 1952 Act, which were to borne in mind by CBFC while certifying the films.
The Court relied on Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6, wherein the Court considered the binding effect of the certificate issued by CBFC to a movie. Thus, the Court noted that the movie was granted a ‘U’ certificate by CBFC which was intended for unrestricted public exhibition and in view of the said certificate issued under Section 5-A(1)(a) of the 1952 Act and the proviso to the said Section, and therefore, in the facts of this case, the reliefs sought against Respondent 1 were not maintainable.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that there were no grounds or legal basis in the petition justifying the said relief and the Central Government had already issued guidelines under Section 5-B(2) of the 1952 Act, to CBFC for the purpose of sanctioning film, which included guidelines for handicapped persons.
[Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 337, decided on 15-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Jai Anant Dehadrai, Md Tasnimul Hassan, Siddharth Sharma, Martin George, Shivam Kunal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Atmaram NS Nandkarni, Senior Advocate; Alipak Banerjee, Tanisha Khanna, Karishma Karthik, Kamayani Sharma, AR, Namit Chatrath, AR, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Brijesh Ujjainwal, Advocates
