LAWS(KAR)-1997-9-84

N P AMRUTHESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On September 04, 1997
N.P.AMRUTHESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner who is an Advocate of this court and who being public spirited, always raised voice against the acts of insult or acts having tendency to insult or disgrace the things of national importance, such as national flag, national anthem, or the institutions like court i. e. , judiciary or judicature established under the constitution, is seeking direction of the court for deletion of such things which have tendency to degrade or disgrace things of national importance, dignity of the court or dignity of women or the like and has prayed for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of prohibition or writ of mandamus prohibiting or directing the respondents not to exhibit as well directing them to remove the scenes which have tendency of degrading the status of national flag and national anthem or of judicial system or the dignity of woman, which according to the petitioner have been shown in the film jackie chan. He has also prayed for a direction to the censor board to withdraw permission for exhibition of the film "jackie chan", either in kannada or in tamil or telugu or in any other language in the film theatre, in any part of the country, including the states of karnataka, tamil nadu and andhra pradesh and for further direction to the respondents, not to grant subsidy on such films, which have such tendency of insulting the nation or national flag, national anthem or the judicial system of this country or which have tendency to affect adversely the dignity of women or morals of society especially adolescents.

(2.) THE petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that this film "jackie chan" has been produced by the same set of persons who had earlier produced the film "police story" in kannada and the petitioner had to file writ petition No. 27366 of 1996, challenging the exhibition of the film named as 'police story', which had a tendency of disgracing, degrading, misleading and undermining the status of the judicial system in that film and in that case the third respondent had filed written apology by affidavit. The said petition filed in respect of the film "police story" is yet a matter pending before this court for final decision. Petitioner's case is that the petitioner has objection to the film "jackie chan" with regard to scenes which are insulting or which have tendency to insult the nation, the national flag, national anthem, judicial system and also to insult the member of the bar or advocates by describing the lawyer as a phoot lawyer, as well as against the scene of rude, violence, cruelty, gang war and also scenes having tendency of degrading the dignity of woman including the scene of kicking. The petitioner claims that he has been interested in seeking relief for curbing the indecent way of exhibiting or showing the working of judicial system, or administration or Justice as well as curbing the insult made to woman or to national flag or to national anthem. The petitioner has asserted that the petitioner had seen the film at geethanjali theatre at malleswaram, on 3rd july, 1997 and when the petitioner had seen the film "jackie chan", on 3-7-1997, there was a scene in which national flag was shown to be hoisted and when it was hoisted by the person shown or depicted as chief minister/governor and national anthem was being sung, the character singarappa, who was playing the role of ex. Chief minister and who had lost the seat of chief minister's post was shown to be sitting on chair and he had been shown not to have stood up when the national flag was hoisted and national anthem was being sung and was shown to have acted in the manner exhibiting dishonour and disrespect to the national flag and national anthem. Petitioner's case is that in that scene it was also shown that the inspector of police or character playing the role of inspector of police by name simha, came there and asked the ex. Chief minister singarappa to stand up and give respect to the national flag and national anthem, but the ex. Chief minister, singarappa is shown to have exhibited disrespect for the national flag by uttering the expressions like what is there in the national flag, it is only a piece of cloth which may be akin to a piece of cloth used by men for covering their modesty and why should I respect the cloth, particularly when I am perturbed about my post of chief minister. Petitioner's case is that singarappa, the character shown as ex. Chief minister, uses the expression, describing, the national flag as "puttugosi". The petitioner has produced the dialogue of the said character acting as ex. Chief minister in the film and it is quoted as under:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . the petitioner's further case is that in the scene a disrespect has been shown to khadi, which had played an important role in the course of freedom movement and which is used in the national flag. Petitioner's case is that gandhi introduced khadi and cottage industry, to make the ordinary village people self sufficient as a means to provide something to village workers as a source of livelihood, to be self sufficient particularly during off seasons when harvesting has been done, so that they could stand up against the tyranny of imperialism and to fight for the independence of the nation. Petitioner's case is that khadi had been compared with napkin cloth. Petitioner's further case is that this disrespect to khadi is also a disrespect to a thing of national importance. Petitioner as mentioned earlier has alleged that scenes degrading and denigrating women's status have been shown including kicking of the stomach of pregnant woman, which has the tendency of hitting the sentiments of women, in addition to other scenes. Petitioner has also taken an objection to the use of petitioner's name in that film and the character bearing his name being described as phoot lawyer earning money by selling truth, Justice and law, everything. Petitioner's case is that his name has been specifically used to damage the dignity of the bar, including the petitioner, when the lawyer is shown to have been described as phoot lawyer. Petitioner as such has averred in the petition that in view of such scenes which have a tendency of degrading or disgracing the things of national importance, khadi, the uniting thread of freedom movement, judiciary and the judicial system, the advocates or the bar, which is part of the institution of the court, particularly when conducting the cases, as well as petitioner, because of the ill will borne by the respondents in view of pending litigation relating to police story filed by the petitioner, the petitioner felt aggrieved, disgusted with such scenes which had tendency of playing mockery or having tendency of degrading things of national importance as mentioned above, including the woman, petitioner has been constrained to approach this court with this public interest litigation, as he had no other efficacious remedy and has impleaded in addition to other respondents, the director etc. , the regional officer of the central board of film certification and the State of karnataka, department of home. The petitioner's further case is that the censor board has not acted with due care in issuing certificate to such a film or film containing such scenes, which are even too derogatory of the position of the court in addition being derogatory to the national flag, national anthem, and the women as well as of the bar.

(3.) THIS petition was filed on 5-7-1997 and was put up for orders on july 7, 1997. This court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file counter-affidavit by or before 15th of july, 1997. The respondents were also directed to furnish the english translation of the manuscript, particularly the objectionable portions as well as of the original manuscript and also a copy of the film cassette which has been released for exhibition and examination by the court to verify the correctness. The court also ordered prohibition of exhibition, distribution etc. , of the film, jackie chan, till further orders.