Nazia Elahi Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Ld. AG Mr. Talay M. Siddiqui, Ms. Adreeka Pandey, Advocates … for the State In this public interest petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State authorities to prohibit or suspend the exhibition of film “Laal Singh Chaddha” in the theatres all across the State of West Bengal through the exercise of power conferred by Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act of 1954’). The plea raised in the petition is that in the State of West Bengal, the current situation is extremely volatile and in the social media, there is a move to oppose the film. The suspension or prohibition of exhibition of the film has been sought on the plea that it would lead to breach of peace and tranquility in the State. Learned Advocate General has opposed the petition by submitting that the issue involved in the present case is already covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2 WPA (P) 397 of 2022 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the film has already been released on 11th of August, 2022. Substantial time has passed thereafter. Learned Advocate General has informed that no untoward incident has taken place relating to the release of the film till now. Hence, we find the apprehension raised by the petitioner is unfounded. That apart, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indibily Creative Private Limited and Others vs. Government of West Bengal and Others reported in (2020) 12 SCC 436 in a case where certain restrictions were put by the State of West Bengal on the exhibition of the film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot”, has considered the legality of such restrictions and has held that rights of artists are to be placed above popular notions on acceptability and unacceptability. Those who feel film is unacceptable has the option not to watch it. It has further been held that it is impermissible for the police without the statutory authority to interfere in screening of satirical film which received certification from the Censor Board. Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that if the right of the playwright, artist, musician and actor are to be subjected to popular notions of what is or is not acceptable, the right to freedom of speech and expression itself and its guarantee under the Constitution will be rendered illusory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case has 3 WPA (P) 397 of 2022 duly considered Section 6 of the Act of 1954 also and has held that :- “44. The statutory authority to certify a film for public exhibition is vested in the CBFC under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Sections 4, 5, 5-A and 5-B provided a statutory code for the examination and certification of films for public exhibition. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-B provides for the grounds on which a film may not be certified for public exhibition. An order refusing to grant certification is subject to the remedies stipulated in the Act. The State Act [Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954] and the Central Act [Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952] provide the conditions in which the State Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government (or a local authority) may suspend the exhibition of a film, where it is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Any order which is issued under the terms of these statutory provisions is subject to statutory control as well as to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 or, as the case may be, the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. These statutes are to be interpreted in the rule of law framework. An excess or abuse of statutory power is amenable to constitutional guarantees which protect the citizen against arbitrary State action.

#45. The danger which this case exemplifies is the peril of subjecting the freedom of speech and expression of the citizen to actions which are not contemplated by the statute and lie beyond the lawful exercise of public power. All exercises of in pursuance of enabling statutory authority provisions are amenable to statutory remedies and are subject to judicial oversight under a regime of constitutional remedies. The exercise of statutory authority is not uncontrolled in a regime based on the rule of law. But what do citizens who have a legitimate right to exhibit a film confront when they are told that a film which is duly certified and slated for release is unceremoniously pulled off the exhibiting theatres without the authority of law? Such attempts are insidious and pose a grave danger to personal free speech and expression. They are insidious because they are not liberty and 4 WPA (P) 397 of 2022 backed by the authority of law. They pose grave dangers to free speech because the citizen is left in the lurch without being informed of the causes or the basis of the action. This has the immediate effect of silencing speech and the expression of opinion. intolerance: intolerance which

#46. Contemporary events reveal that there is a growing unaccepting of the rights of others in society to freely espouse their views and to portray them in print, in the theatre or in the celluloid media. Organised groups and interests pose a serious danger to the existence of the right to free speech and expression. If the right of the playwright, artist, musician or actor were to be subjected to popular notions of what is or is not acceptable, the right itself and its guarantee under the Constitution would be rendered illusory. The true purpose of art, as manifest in its myriad forms, is to question and provoke. Art in an elemental sense reflects a human urge to question the assumptions on which societal values may be founded. In questioning prevailing social values and popular cultures, every art form seeks to espouse a vision. Underlying the vision of the artist is a desire to find a new meaning for existence. The artist, in an effort to do so, is entitled to the fullest liberty and freedom to critique and criticise. Satire and irony are willing allies of the quest to entertain while at the same time to lead to self-reflection. We find in the foibles of others an image of our own lives. Our experiences provide meaning to our existence. Art is as much for the mainstream as it is for the margins. The Constitution protects the ability of every individual citizen communicate, to conceptualise as much as to share.” to believe as much as In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued mandamus restraining the State from taking recourse to any form of extra-constitutional means to prevent the unlawful screening of the film and had also directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner. 5 WPA (P) 397 of 2022 Having regard to the above, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to grant the prayer made in the present public interest petition. The petition is found to devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed. [Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.] [Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]