BHARATHI KANNAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification/Second respondent to revoke the censor certificate for public exhibition issued to the Tamil Feature Film "I" stated to be produced by the third respondent and directed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner claims to be a transgender running a Trust, working towards empowerment of transgenders. It is averred that transgenders are alienated from their own family and community and referred to derogatory slang used to humiliate and intimidate the transgenders with double meaning words being used. It has been emphasised that the rights of the transgenders to be recognised as a "third gender" are now predicated under the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and Others reported in : (2014) 5 SCC 438). It is alleged that recently during Pongal festival, the movie "I" was released where transgenders have been depicted in vulgarity and their human dignity has been abused. The examples of these are stated to be inter alia, the main villain character being transgender, the room in which the transgender stays is shown as "9", the comedian using abusive words against the Villain and singing of a song. The petitioner claims to have made representation on 23.01.2015 to the respondents for revocation of the censor certificate, but contends that the petitioner may not have to wait for a decision on such representation, in view of the apparent allegation made and the failure of the second respondent to exercise statutory powers under Section 9 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also referred a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Ms. A. Arulmozhi vs. Government of India reported in : (2005) 3 M.L.J. 497), more specifically paragraph - 49 where it has been observed that though a representation has been sent in that case to the authority concerned for invoking revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, it is still open to the parties to approach the Court of Law for revocation.

(3.) WE have no doubt that if something is offending the human rights or existence of the transgenders, the same needs protection. This view is reinforced by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority case cited supra. However, this has to be equally balanced with right of freedom of speech and expression, more so in matters of literary and artistic works. The representation in films includes an aspect of dramatisation and thus different parameters apply. This ofcourse does not mean licence to exhibit anything and that is why a specialised body has been constituted under the said Act. The specialised body consists of persons of the field and other eminent people in different social fields, so that there is an overall check and balance. The objective thus is that while over sensitivity is not to be protected, there is no absolute license, which may amount to derogation of any community or faith. It is only on the advisory panel recommendation that certification is issued.