KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision of the Central Government declining exemption for three documentary films from the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act for exhibition in an international documentary and short film festival organized by the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner is a Society established by the Government of Kerala, among others, for organizing film festivals at the National and International levels with a view to promote a good film culture in the State. An international documentary and short film festival was organized by the petitioner during June, 2017. From the applications received from the producers, the organizing committee of the festival selected 170 documentary and short films for exhibition at the festival. Certification under the Cinematograph Act('the Act') is required for public exhibition of films. Section 9 of the Act, however, confers unconditional power on the Central Government to exempt any film or class of films from the process of certification under the Act. Since the documentary and the short films selected for exhibition at the festival have not obtained certification under the Act for exhibition, the petitioner sought exemption from the Central Government under Section 9 of the Act for exhibition of the said films at the festival. As per Ext. P5 order, exemption was granted by the Central Government for all the films except four including three films produced by respondents 5 to 8. Ext. P4 is the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, for granting exemption under Section 9 of the Act. Ext. P4 provides for a right of appeal against the decision of the Central Government on applications for exemption to the next higher authority in the Ministry. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal challenging the decision declining exemption for the four films referred to above. It is seen that since the descriptions given by the petitioner in respect of the said films were not considered adequate to decide the appeal, the competent authority called upon the petitioner to provide copies of the films also for consideration of the appeal and in response to the said direction, the petitioner made available copies of the films produced by respondents 5 to 8 namely, (1) 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar', (2) 'March, March, March' and (3) 'Unbearable Being of Lightness'. Since the petitioner could produce only copies of the aforesaid films, the competent authority considered the appeal in the context of the said films. Ext. P8 is the order passed by the Central Government in the appeal. As per Ext. P8, Ext. P5 decision has been affirmed.

(3.) The documentary film produced by respondents 5 and 6 namely, 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is a film shot at Kashmir Valley dealing with the lives of a group of young Kashmiri artists. The documentary film produced by the seventh respondent namely, 'March, March, March' is a film dealing with the agitation of the students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University during February, 2016 and its aftermath. The documentary film produced by eighth respondent namely, 'Unbearable Being of Lightness' is a film dealing with the agitation of the students at the University of Hyderabad consequent on the death of the research scholar Rohit Vemula. Ext. P5 order does not contain the reasons, if any, on the basis of which the exemption sought by the petitioner was declined by the Central Government in respect of the films referred to above. As far as the film 'In the Shade of Fallen Chinar' is concerned, it is stated, however, in Ext. P8 order that since there is terrorism and violence in some parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, screening of the said film on Kashmir issues is likely to be exploited by anti-national elements for creating avoidable situations. As far as the remaining two films, it is stated in Ext. P8 order that they relate to agitations of students in the recent past which adversely affected the law and order in some parts of the country. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid reasons are unsustainable and hence this writ petition challenging Ext. .P5 and P8 orders in so far as it relate to the aforesaid three films.