P KALIDASS Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a pro-bono public, has filed the above writ petition with a prayer to direct the third respondent to withdraw the certificate issued to the film "arasatchi" and a total ban on the production, exhibition and screening of the said film in any form.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, who claims to be an advocate, the film "arasatchi" is about a story of an youngster, who kills about nine persons, who are practising as advocates in criminal matters and the theme of the story is that instead of giving grave punishments to the real culprits, the advocates, who exercise only their right and perform their legal duties were being punished. The petitioner further submits that he came to know that nine members out of the ten members of the revising committee had objected and cuts were imposed throughout the film and one member of the revising committee had given a very serious objection and even asked for the total ban of the film since it diverts the opinion of the public against the judiciary. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the 4th respondent sent the above film to the 3rd respondent for review and that the film is to be released on 10. 9. 04 from which he had come to know that the 4th respondent had obtained a certificate from the 3rd respondent to release the film.

(3.) IN BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNIO N (REGD.) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2002 (2) SCC 333), the Supreme Court held that PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief and that there have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL and there is need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations made in S. P. Gupta Vs. Union of INdia (1981 Supp. SCC 87) wherein it was observed that there are certain dangers in pil which the court has to be careful to avoid and it is necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution and it is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability.