N P AMRUTESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners, who are Advocates of this Court, as public interest litigation seeking the issuance of (a) writ of prohibition or order or direction against respondents 3 to 4 directing them not to exhibit Kannada film 'Kona Eedaite' (which means in English that He Buffallo gives birth to a calf), on 2-2-1995, or on any subsequent dates in any film Cinema, theatre and Celluloid for general public either in the State of Karnataka, or anywhere within the territory of India, as well as, for directing respondents 1 and 2 to take back / withdraw the certificate / permission for exhibition of the aforesaid Kannada Film and for costs. While, moving the writ petition, the petitioners also prayed for an ex parte interim order directing respondents not to exhibit the film on 2-2-1995 or on subsequent dates pending decision or disposal of this writ petition by the Court after witnessing and examining finding, if it is fit for being released for exhibition.

(2.) The petitioners' case has been that the petitioners have been practising as Lawyers in the High Court of Karnataka and Courts subordinate to it and have always been interested in maintenance and upholding of the dignity and sovereignty of the nation and the Courts including the High Court forming part of judicial system of our country of which the petitioners considered themselves to be the part and parcel as the officers of the Courts being the Advocates. The petitioners have asserted that they are interested in taking recourse to the law Courts seeking relief of prohibition and curbing, of the exhibition of films, by the Courts which depict Courts and judicial system in an indecent manner. The petitioners have further alleged that they are not seeking any relief in their individual capacity, but, have got common interest to save the judicial system from being maligned and degenerated, as such they have filed this writ petition. Whereas, in this Writ Petition, it has been alleged by the petitioners (sic) were pained to see and mark scenes disgracing as well containing sets, dialogues or things tending to mislead the people about working in Courts and thereby adversely affect the judicial system by depiction of that Kannada film aforesaid which is to be released on 2nd of Feb, 1995. The whole judicial system starting from the Lowest Court up to the Highest Court of the country has been brought down in the film, making a mockery of it, in the eye of the public when may have the view of the film. The petitioners have further mentioned that Respondent No. 1, is the Licensing Authority permitting the exhibition of the film in the State of Karnataka, while, Respondent No. 2, is the Censoring authority granting censor's certification and that the 3rd respondent in this Writ Petition is the producer of the film under the banner 'Bellala International Films and 4th respondent is the film story writer and Director of the film, while, respondent No. 5, is the Distributor of the film. That the petitioners had actually seen and witnessed the Kannada movie aforesaid at Basant Coloured Laboratories, K. H. Road, Bangalore, in a pre-view show conducted in a range by the producer and director.

(3.) The petitioners state that the story of the film begins from Law College environment, where a poor brilliant law college student is prosecuting his studies, who becomes victim of the circumstances by intervention of the two lady students and their respective fathers, who are depicted to be the leading Advocates practising mainly on the criminal and civil sides. That on illegal gratification extended by both the lady students and their respective fathers in the purchasing of the ranks and gold medals from the Vice-Chancellor of the University, against the norms and values or merits of that brilliant rank student and a gold medalist in his career feels frustrated. It shows that the Law degrees are being sold to the lady persons and that one can purchase Law Degrees and gold medals by money or by use of their political influences irrespective of the fact that they happened to be not eligible for such degrees. It is further depicted that the two lawyers in the picture, while acting under the influence of their respective daughters are competing with each other in their effort to win over with that brilliant student as the son-in-law. It is contended by the petitioners that it has been depicted in the picture that for the sake of the daughters and their selfish motive of getting that poor but meritorious Law student married, they made hectic efforts in that regard by filing two false cases which are mainly hosted against the said poor student for their oblique motives. One of the cases filed against the poor law student by one of the two Advocate fathers is based on allegations of rape alleged to have been committed by the poor law student on his daughter. While, in another case filed by the father of another girl, namely, the second lawyer, that poor student had been charged and alleged to be impotent and seeks a declaration, in that cases sought that he is impotent. Thereafter, both the cases were tried separately and the witnesses were examined. The Hon'ble Judge or the Presiding Officer of the Court indeed has been depicted as a person under the control of his Jawali/ Jamedar/ Dafedar, who is standing on the dias of the Court by the side of the Judge everytime interfering, and dictating terms to the Hon'ble Judge in the matter of hearing, taking of evidence and the pronouncement of orders, that is, in the performance and discharge of this judicial duty. The Dafedar has always been shown to be instrumental in threatening and blackmailing the Hon'ble Judge by saying that his secret deals, acts and affairs of the Judge will be made known to his wife at house, if he (Judge) does not act on his advise. That in the film it is shown that tutored and ready made witnesses are always available to the needy clients and the Advocates in order to enable them to win the cases. The petitioners have also asserted that all these have been shown in and around the building of this Hon'ble High Court. One lady character named as Shashi Satyavati, who presents herself in the witness box in a vulgar manner in endowed /double meaning criticising the judiciary by making a statement that she has given evidence before various Courts at the convenience of litigants and their Advocates, at the same time, her name being familiar with all the Courts that she is 'Sullovati'. The whole procedure of recording the statements on the facts and the judgment is shown as a mockery. The petitioners have tried to illustrate the same by further asserting as under :