Nityananda Swamy, R.R.District v. Union of India, New Delhi and 5 others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.32511 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be the Managing Trustee of Nityananda Dhyanapeetham Trust situated at Dhyanapaeetham, Bidadi, Bangalore. It is claimed that the petitioner has been running the Trust for propagation of Hindu Dharma, Yogic Practices, meditation and education in India and several other countries. It is alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 started production of a Telugu Film by name “AYYARE” portraying the petitioner in bad light with the sole intention to scandalize the petitioner. It is also claimed that the role of the 6th respondent in the said film and his get up is nothing but impersonation of the petitioner and the film is being produced to create negative image of the petitioner and to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner in the society. Though the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated
6.9.2010 to the respondents 3 to 6 to desist from making the film, the respondents 3 to 6 gave a reply dated 11.10.2010 making false allegations and continued the shooting of the film. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation dated 8.12.2010 the 2nd respondent apprising the gravity of the situation and requesting not to issue the certificate for public exhibition. Alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider the petitioner’s request, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to issue the certification to the film in question for public exhibition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the 2nd respondent - Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad had not received any application for certification of the film in question. It is further stated that as and when the application is received by the 2nd respondent, the film will be examined according to the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the rules made thereunder and the guidelines issued by the Government and the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 8.12.2010 will also be considered within the framework of the rules.
The respondents 4 and 5 in the counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations in the writ petition, claimed that they had no acquaintance with the petitioner and he had no axe to grind against him. It is further contended that the writ petition itself is premature since the film is yet to be certified by the Central Board of Film Certification as per the guidelines issued under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The respondent No.6 also filed a separate counter-affidavit on the same lines. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, production of film in question has not yet been completed and the respondents 3 to 5 have not yet approached the Central Board of Film Certification for grant of certificate for public exhibition as required under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder.
The Central Board of Film Certification is the competent authority to grant the certificate for public exhibition and it is for the Board to ensure that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as the guidelines issued by the Central Government for the certification of the film for public exhibition are scrupulously followed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is explained that the guidelines for certifying films for public exhibition prohibits defamation of individuals or body of individuals. Having regard to the admitted fact that the film in question has not yet come up for consideration by the statutory body, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to any of the allegations made by the petitioner at this stage. As noticed above, the petitioner has already submitted his objections before the respondents 1 & 2 and in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the objections of the petitioner would be considered as and when the application is received for certification of the film in question.
Operative part
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate decision in terms of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the rules made thereunder and the guidelines issued by the Central Government as and when the application is received from the respondents 3 and 4 for grant of certificate for public exhibition of the film in question. Since the petitioner has already raised his objections, the respondent No.2 shall also consider the same in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 18.07.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jul 2011. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.