MIRABAI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the letters of the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai dated 13th October 1997 and 17th October 1977 (Exhs. E, F and G to the writ petition) directing them to delete certain visuals from the film "kamasutra - A Tale of Love", dubbed in Hindi, Tamil and Telugu. These directions, according to the petitioners, are illegal and contrary to the existing guidelines of the Central Government. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have no power to further censor the visuals of the dubbed version of an already certified film. They seek a direction to respondents not to insist on deletion of any part of the visuals in the dubbed version.

(2.) THE materials facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows :---The petitioner Company, which is engaged in the business of film production and direction, produced a full length Indian feature film titled as "kamasutra - A Tale of Love", originally in English language, with an intention to dub the same in Hindi and other regional languages. The petitioners applied to the Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai on 31st October, 1996 for certification of the said film for public exhibition. The film was examined by the Examining Committee and after the suggested cuts were accepted by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 -Central Board of Film Certification informed the petitioners on 11th November 1996 that the film had been referred to Revising Committee under Rule 24 (1) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules 1983. The Revising Committee directed certain further cuts. The petitioners were informed of the same by letter dated 19th November 1996. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Revising Committee on 25th November 1996. The Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 10th December 1996, directed that after certain cuts, deletions the film be granted an A Certificate.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the respondents have no power to suggest or direct any cuts in the visuals in a dubbed version once the original film has been certified. In other words, according to the petitioners, the respondents have no power to further censor the visuals in a dubbed version of an already certified film. In support of this contention, the petitioners rely on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Union of India by D. O. letter 10th June 1993 whereby special procedure for certification of dubbed films has been laid down. By the said guidelines, an applicant in respect of a film claimed to be dubbed version has been given an option to have his film treated as a fresh film or his film subjected to the special procedure mentioned therein. In the present case, the petitioners exercised the second option and wanted the dubbed films to be subjected to the special procedure mentioned in the guidelines for certification of the same. The case of the petitioners is that under the procedure laid down by the Government of India, it is clearly stipulated that once the Examining Committee by majority is satisfied that the dubbed version visuals are exactly the same as the visuals of the original certified version, there should not be another censorship in respect of visuals of the film except for the title etc. mentioned in sub-Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Clause (i) of para 2 of the guidelines. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Clause (i) refer to the main title of the picture and credit title, name plates, boards, etc. appearing in the visuals of the film converted to the language in which the film is being dubbed. The case of the petitioners is that in view of the guidelines, the direction of the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners to make further cuts in the visuals of the dubbed films are illegal.