SREE PADMANABHA SWAMY TEMPLE v. UNION OF INDIA

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C).No. 15500 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by Sree Padmanabha Swamy Templerepresented by its Executive Officer, seeking for various reliefs including adirection prohibiting respondents 1 and 2 from granting certification underthe provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 for exhibition of the film“Padmavyooham” directed and scripted by the fourth respondent. Mainly itis contended that the release and exhibition of the film is in violation of theorders passed by the Apex Court as per Exts.P1, P2 and P4.2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed an interimorder which was being extended from time to time.3. Heard parties.4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit and a statementhas been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 ofthe statement are reproduced below for easy reference:“ 4. It is submitted that as the application was found to be inorder, the film was placed before an Examining Committee on21.6.2012 and the Committee after examination of the film andafter giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the 3rd W.P.(C).No.15500/2012-2-respondent had recommended the film to be fit for grant of 'U'certificate with one cut (sound only) under the thematicclassification 'Social'. In the film, the Executive Committee didnot find anything violative of the guidelines issued by theMinistry of Information and Broadcasting except for anexpletive word uttered by one of the characters in the film andthis word was ordered to be muted. In the film also except for amention in the narration of historical facts at the beginning ofthe film (in Reel No.1), there was no reference to SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple or the value of treasures in theKallaras (underground treasure vaults) therein.5. The 3rd respondent submitted a compliance of censor cuts,and a lab letter in support thereof on 25.6.2012. However, afterexamination of the film, a legal notice dated 20.6.2012 wasreceived by speed post, which itself was bearing postal date ofbooking on 25.6.2012. In view of the objections raised by theSree Padmanabha Swamy Temple as contained in the legalnotice, the issuance of certificate to the film was kept inabeyance and the matter was referred to the Central Board ofFilm Certification, Mumbai office for advice and decision of thecompetent authority. In the meanwhile, the interim order of theHon'ble High Court has been received and in respectfulcompliance thereof, the certification has been deferred.7. This observation of the Hon'ble court is not applicable in thecase of the present cinematographic film 'Padmavyooham' as it W.P.(C).No.15500/2012-3-is not a media report nor is it speculative about the value of thetreasures so as to be likely to mislead the general public. Thefilm being a fictional depiction of a story, has nothing to dowith the value of the treasures in kallaras of the SreePadmanabha Swamy Temple. This being so, certification ofthe film, the 2nd respondent by no stretch of imagination is likelyto be construed as contempt of the interlocutory order of theHonourable Supreme Court. It is denied that Para 6.3 of theorder dated 22.9.2011 is directed against certification orexhibition of any film, much less the feature film'Padmavyooham'. The said Para directs that to maintainconfidentiality and to avoid logistic problem the templeadministration shall make available independent office spacewith proper security in the temple premises, for the committeesconstituted by the Hon'ble Court.”5. In the light of the above, it can be seen that as apprehended, thefilm does not have a central theme regarding kallaras. In the film there areno references about Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple or the value of thetreasures in kallaras, except for a narration of historical facts. It is thereforepointed out in the statement that there is no violation of the interim orderspassed by the Apex Court. W.P.(C).No.15500/2012-4-6. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent alsosubmitted that the fourth respondent has not violated the interim orderpassed by the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner actually wants strict adherence to the orders of the ApexCourt.7. In the light of the factual position as revealed above and in thelight of the stand of respondents 1 and 2, the writ petition is disposed ofrecording that the directions issued by the Apex Court have not beenviolated and the fourth respondent is free to release the movie. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) kav/