B K ADARSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner had produced a film titled 'SEX VGYAN' (Sex Education) and applied on Sept., 18, 1987 to the Addl. Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, at Hyderabad (4th respondent) for certification under S. 5-A of the Cinematograph Act (Act 37 of 1952) for short, "the Principal Act". The Examining Committee met on Oct., 28, 1987 and on preview, recommended to grant 'A' Certificate to the film with 13 cuts. On its placement before the Chairman on consideration of the material, he exercised suo motu power and referred to the Revising Committee which saw the film at Bombay on 18/11/1987. All the eight members unanimously recommended that the film in its present form be refused certification and on appeal, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal confirmed it after seeing the film on 5/02/1988 and hearing the Counsel. The petitioner is assailing the legality of refusal to grant 'A' Certificate (fit for exhibiting the film to the Adults).

(2.) The film starts with a Conference of Medicos and other delegates on sex education headed by Dr. Ravi Varma who prefaced with the need to enlighten the public on sex education in the modern society and the evil effects due to its ignorance followed by a discussion on several topics starting with 'Happy married life', prostitution, venereal diseases. Aids, pregnancy, different methods of deliveries, family planning methods, test tube baby, sex transmission, cancer to sex organs, etc. Thereafter, there is the session viz. questions by the delegates and answers by a panel of Doctors and lastly with sex perversion and their evil effects.

(3.) The Revising Committee found that the title viz. 'Sex Education' itself shows that the exhibiting visuals of male and female genitals, needlessly for a long time and some of them are very repulsive and nauseating. The scene relating to sale of girls for prostitution, perverted and sadistic sex behaviours of men are obnoxious ad objectionable. The film showing visuals and of operative procedures are not palatable to general public etc. It concluded that--