Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) 306 of 2019
Delivered On: 11/04/2019
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, J.J.
Petitioner: Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd & Ors
Respondent: Govt. of West Bengal & Ors
Facts
Founded in 2017, the first petitioner is a company. The filmmakers, who also co-produced the movie, are the second and third petitioners. “Meghnadbodh Rohoshyo,” a Bengali film that was chosen for the Indian Panorama at the 48th International Film Festival of India in 2017, was earlier made by the second petitioner. “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” (Future Ghosts), their most recent film, was included on the 2018 ARFF International – Barcelona Jury Award shortlist. In this film, spirits assist the outmoded and marginalised segments of society, serving as a social and political satire. It critiques the transition from conventional cabaret to contemporary “item numbers,” the erosion of established professions as a result of digitalization, and the compromising of politics, journalism, and the film industry.
Stories about friendly ghosts are customary in Bengal. Anik Datta, the director, is renowned for his intelligent and heartbreaking films that tackle social and political themes. He used ghosts in his previous movie “Bhooter Bhobishyot” to keep a haunted house safe from a greedy developer. His other movies similarly deal with themes of materialism and political intrigue.
On November 19, 2018, “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was certified as UA by the Central Board of Film Certification. It was heavily promoted in the weeks preceding its February 15, 2019, release date in Kolkata and some regions of West Bengal. A caller posing as a representative of the State Intelligence Unit of the Kolkata Police called the second petitioner on February 11, 2019, requesting a pre-screening for top officials because of worries that the film’s content will incite disturbance among the population. In response, the second petitioner claimed that the CBFC had already approved the movie and that any more meddling would be illegal.
In spite of these problems, the movie opened on February 15, 2019, as scheduled, with showings at 11:00 am and 5:50 pm. But on February 16th, the majority of West Bengali and Kolkata theatres had unexpectedly ceased showing the movie and were refunding tickets without providing a reason. The exhibitors informed the filmmaker and crew that they had been notified by “higher authorities” to cease the screenings, and local police had issued a warning to them to do so or risk causing damage to their theatres.
Therefore the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as their fundamental right had been violated.
ISSUES RAISED
- That the Bengali feature film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was wrongfully ceased from being shown in public by the State of West Bengal, the Department of Home, and the Kolkata Police.
- That the State of West Bengal was acting as a “super-censor” over the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) by abusing its police authority to obstruct the film’s showing.
- That this obstruction violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
CONTENTIONS
The petitioner contended that the State of West Bengal, its Home Department, and Kolkata Police have misused their police power by acting as a superior censor over the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and had unlawfully obstructed the public exhibition of their film “Bhobishoetr Bhoot” as they demanded a private screening even after having already certified from the CBFC, which amounted to the violation of the rule of law, according to this, once a film has been approved by the CBFC, the state cannot censor it or use law and order concerns as a reason to prevent its screening. They argued that such acts were a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Also, the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech was infringed when the movie was abruptly removed from theatres without providing a proper explanation or communication or any justification. These actions were alleged to have been taken under the pressure of the higher authorities, restricted the audience’s access to the film, and hindered the filmmaker’s capacity to express their messages. The petitioner also argued that there were threats issued by the police authorities to different exhibitors, warning them to cause harm and damages to the theatres were illegal and coercive and this also contributed to the unjustified withdrawal of the film from theatres. Numerous well-known figures from Bengali literature, theatre, and film protested against the removal of the film and the restriction of free speech.
Whereas the respondent contended that the letters were sent to the cinema owners and police officers requesting them they comply with the court order to protect the film screening. The respondent also argued that the film was not officially banned by the government of West Bengal.
RATIONALS
The Supreme Court emphasized that the State must protect the fundamental rights to free speech and expression and that the actions of the state and the authorities were unlawful and violated the petitioner’s rights. It also held that they must respect the film’s certification by the Central Board of Film Certification and thus the state authorities cannot obstruct its exhibition. The court also observed that the joint commissioner of police acted beyond his authority by demanding a private screening. They emphasized that freedom of speech and expression can only be restricted under specific circumstances outlined in Article 19(2). Criticising government actions or policies does not make it acceptable to restrict speech, because democracy depends on tolerance for opposing ideas. The court also upheld the filmmaker’s rights, highlighting the role of statutory bodies like the CBFC in certifying films and the limitations on government interference. Therefore, the government’s hindrance to preventing the movie from screening violated the public’s right to freedom of expression as well as the public’s right to be informed.
As a result, the court ruled that the State had inferred the right to free speech and expression, both directly and indirectly, and that the petitioner’s rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution had been violated. In addition, the court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 1 lakh in legal compensation for the fundamental rights violations, which it esteemed to be worth Rs. 20 lakhs.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- The overreach of police authority: where the police have acted beyond their power. Their action to arrange a private screening for senior officials based on concerns about potential law and order issues was deemed to be an unlawful interference with the public exhibition of a film that had already been certified by the respected statutory authority i.e., CBFC.
- The State’s actions were arbitrary and violated the principle of constitutional rights. The court emphasized that freedom of expression, once certified by the CBFC, cannot be curtailed by the state except under limited grounds specified under Article 19(2).
- The state interference was found to be unlawful rather than a valid reason. The court emphasized that law and order without violating constitutional rights is the state’s duty.
- The state’s failure to provide any communication or justification seeking clarity shows disregard for transparency and due process of law.
INFERENCE
- The court firmly reaffirmed that the state cannot illegally impose restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as provided by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. After receiving certification from the CBFC, a movie can be shown without further state restrictions.
- The court emphasized that state and police authorities do not have the power to act as super-censors and overrule the CBFC’s rulings.
- The court also emphasized that rather than using law and order as a cover to silence critics or dissenting voices, the state should make sure that it is upheld to allow people to enjoy their constitutional rights.
To sum up this case reinforces the idea that the state must obey the law, respect to the rulings of statutory authorities such as the CBFC, and protect fundamental rights and the rule of law even in the face of possible challenges to public order. The Court emphasized how crucial it is to protect people’s right to free speech and expression.
The petitioners were ordered to receive compensation from the State for their illegal obstruction of the film’s release, amounting to Rs 20 lakhs.
The court’s ruling serves as an example of the vital role that judicial supervision plays in protecting constitutional rights and making sure that state acts stay within the limits of the law. It serves as a reminder that judicial review and correction are available for any misuse or overreach of power by state authorities.
SUBMITTED BY –
ASTHA GUPTA,
PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW.