हाई कोर्ट ने ‘राम लीला’ फिल्म के लिए वर्तमान में कोई निर्देश देने से मना किया

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर द्वारा 'राम लीला' फिल्म के विरुद्ध दायर पीआईएल में इलाहाबाद हार्इ कोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच ने कहा कि वर्तमान में सेंसर बोर्ड को कोई निर्देश दिया जाना उचित नहीं है क्योंकि बोर्ड ने अभी इस मामले में कोई भी निर्णय नहीं लिया है. जस्टिस इम्तियाज़ मुर्तजा और जस्टिस देवेन्द्र कुमार उपाध्याय की बेंच ने कहा कि इस फिल्म को अभी सिनेमेटोग्राफर एक्ट 1952 की धारा 4 के अधीन प्रदर्शित किये जाने हेतु अनुमति नहीं मिली है और सर्टिफिकेट जारी किये जाने की प्रक्रिया अभी पूर्ण नहीं हुई है.

हाई कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब सेंसर बोर्ड इस फिल्म को प्रदर्शन हेतु सर्टिफिकेट देने के लिए देखेगा तो यह अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह सिनेमेटोग्राफर एक्ट और अन्य कानूनों का पूर्ण अनुपालन करेगा. याचिका के अनुसार संजय लीला भंसाली की फिल्म का नाम राम लीला है जबकि इसका उस पवित्र धार्मिक कार्यक्रम से कोई भी वास्ता नहीं है. यह फिल्म अपने आप को गोलियों की रामलीला कहती है. इसके आधिकारिक ट्रेलर में कई गंदे डायलॉग और अन्तरंग दृश्य हैं जिनका इस शब्द से कोई संबंध नहीं है और जो हिन्दुओं की भावनाओं को आहत करता है. अतः नूतन ने तत्काल इस फिल्म का नाम बदले जाने या ऐसा नहीं करने पर इसके प्रोमो को रोकने और फिल्म को अनुमति देने से मना करने की प्रार्थना की थी.

संलग्न- हाई कोर्ट ऑर्डर की प्रति

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 2

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 8872 of 2013

Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondent :- Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Producer & Director Hindi Feature
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande,Tripuresh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.

Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard Sri Asok Pande, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
Through the instant public interest litigation petition, a prayer has been made that respondent no.3-Central Board of Film Certification and respondent no.4- Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Union of India be directed to intervene in the matter relating to public exhibition of a film directed and produced respectively by respondent nos. 1 and 2 titled 'Ram Lila' and direct them to change the title of the film.  Further prayer has been made that Central Board of Film Certification be directed not to grant the certificate for public exhibition of the aforesaid film under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of Cinematograph Act, 1952, if the title of the film is not changed.
Petitioner has also prayed that Central Board of Film Certification and Union of India be directed to impose complete ban on all promotional advertisements of the film, in case Producer and Director of the film do not change title of the film.
It has been alleged by the learned counsel for petitioner that film was watched by the petitioner at her residence on a website as mentioned in para 12 of the writ petition and while watching the movie certain objectionable dialogues and scenes were noticed by her which, according to her, are not only vulgar, rude, offensive and crude but the same degrades the religious feeling of the petitioner. It has further been stated that on account of these objectionable dialogues and scenes in the film, there is a possibility of people misunderstanding the title.
It has also been submitted by the petitioner that the film in question is affecting the sentiments of the public on account of its wrongful title for the reason that title of the film has been derived from dramatic enactment of the life of Lord Rama which cannot be used by the kind of film produced by its Producer.  It has been further argued that use of title 'Ram Lila'  for the film is clearly against decency and morality, which are the grounds envisaged under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 as principles for guidance in certifying the films for public exhibition.  It has further been argued that if the film is certified for public exhibition with the title 'Ram Lila', the same would offend the principles of decency and morality.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have noticed that the film has not yet been certified for public exhibition as required under Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. As per prayer made in the writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification not to grant certificate.  In other words, it appears that process of consideration for grant of certificate for public exhibition of the film has not yet concluded.  Thus, merely on the ground of apprehension, the Court cannot issue direction to the Central Board of Certification, which is a statutory body created under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to exercise its discretion and statutory authority in a particular manner.
As regards the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing directions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Central Board of Film Certification to direct the Producer and Director of the film to change its title, the Court is of the considered opinion that at the time when the Central Board of Film Certification will examine the film for issuing certificate for public exhibition, it is expected that the Board will act in accordance with the provision of Cinematograph Act, 1952 and other related laws.
The proceedings before the Central Board of Film Certification as regards the grant of certificate for public exhibition have not yet been concluded, as such, at this juncture issuing any direction to a statutory body to exercise its statutory discretion and power in a particular manner is not called for.
Yet, another submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Producer and Director have announced 15.11.2013 as the date for releasing the film for exhibition and as such it can be presumed that Central Board of Film Certification will grant certificate without examining the film in the light of principles for guidance enumerated under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The said presumption is unfounded.
As stated above, Central Board of Certification is a statutory body and unless and until process for consideration of certifying film by the Board is completed, no such apprehension regarding the aforesaid presumption on the part of petitioner can be given any weightage.
It has further been pointed out that this Court in the case of Vinod Shanker Misra vs Salman Khan, Writ Petition No. 5483 (M/B) of 2011 by means of interim order dated 08.06.2011 directed the Central Board of Film Certification to reconsider grant of certificate to Hindi feature film 'Ready' and as such taking into account the sentiments of the petitioner, similar directions be issued in respect of film in question in the instant writ petition.  The order dated 08.06.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5483 (M/B) of 2011 was passed at the stage when certificate for public exhibition of the film 'Ready' was already granted. However, in the instant case, process of consideration for grant of certificate for public exhibition of the film in question has not yet been completed, as such we do not find it appropriate to issue any such direction to the Central Board of Film Certification.
In view of discussions made above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.9.2013

Renu/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *