K V MALLIKARJUNA RAO Vs. DEPARTMENT OF HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation initialed by two practising advocates espousing cause of judiciary for deleting the two offending scenes in the feature film Gentleman, which was produced in Telugu, Tamil and Hindi languages. The two offending scenes objected by the petitioners are: (1) the Judge presiding the Court stands up and says Namaskars to the Chief Minister when he enters the Court hall on being called at the instance of the hero, who was made accused and who accuses the Chief Minister, and (2) the statue of Goddess of Justice holding scales containing currency notes.

(2.) The writ petition was admitted on 5-12-1994 and notices were issued to the respondents. As on that day, this Court (incidentally I was the admission Judge) was not aware of the said scenes and there was difficulty in passing orders without there being uncontroverted fact. Now a counter is filed sworn in by one Mr. D. Kailasa Prasad, Director, Central Board of Film Certification, 5th respondent herein and also on behalf of respondents 4 and 6 herein, viz., the Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that the film is a fictitious presentation and the same is presented under guidelines issued under Sec. 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act and guideline 2(viii) governing the situation and that the film was viewed by the Examining Committee and was certified for public exhibition as the committee has not seen any scorn, disgrace or disregard of rules or undermine the dignity of Court in the above scenes mentioned. The counter affidavit says "in the scene referred to, it is admitted that the Judge rises up and gives Namaste signal to the Chief Minister. However, it is denied that this visual is derogatory to the institution of judiciary". The depiction of scene of statue of Goddess of Justice holding the scales with currency notes is not disputed and no comment is made about that. Having said so, it is pleaded in the counter that "this respondent submits that the members of the committee, who examined the film, are not conversant with the nuances of the courts. However, they apply their mind as, individuals of ordinary commonsense and, therefore, it is possible that in the process certain fine issues of court protocols and court rules have been missed. This, however, does not mean that there is any attempt by the executive to tarnish the judiciary by showing it as something inferior or subordinate to the executive. It is also denied that any impression is created in the minds of the public that the judiciary as an institution is impaired because of the visuals referred to". The counter affidavit again pleads pardon stating "this respondent further submits that this office or any other officials associated with the certification of the film have no intention to malign or bring disrepute to the judiciary in any way. It is also humbly submitted that this office shall submit itself to any order of the Honble Court to modify or delete any of the visuals which the Honble Court may find derogatory or demoralising to the judiciary."

(3.) At the outset, I must say that the pleas made in the counter-affidavit are not in proper perspective. In spite of committing grave, mistakes, it is intriguing that respondents 4 to 6 tried to defend the offending scenes. In all fairness, respondents 4 to 6 ought to have pleaded pardon instead of defending the scenes and then seeking pardon, that too, conditionally if the scenes are felt as offending. I take serious note of the conduct of respondents 4 to 6 in this regard.