SARARAPU SRISAILAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is as misconceived as can be and is deserving of exemplary costs. The reasons for this view are as follows.

(2.) The writ petitioner is an individual but describes himself as a "Registered Society". Learned counsel for the petitioner also describes the petitioner as a "politician". There is no effort to reconcile the two descriptions. There are no reasons stated as to how or why the petitioner would suddenly be concerned about the release of a commercial film - "Pushpa 2 (The Rule)" that too when the film is due for release on 5/12/2024 which is less than 48 hours from the time of hearing of the writ petition.

(3.) The first question which arises is whether the writ petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition. The prayers in the writ petition will have to be seen in this context. The petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus on the respondent No.3 i.e., Central Board of Film Certification ('CBFC') for failing to consider the petitioner's representations dtd. 21/11/2024, 26/11/2024 and 28/11/2024. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the certification issued by the third and fourth respondents i.e., The Regional Office at Hyderabad, CBFC and the Public Exhibition Committee of the CBFC respectively, for the theatrical release of the film is arbitrary and in violation of Sec. 5B(1) and (2) of The Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('the 1952 Act').