1

Before The Honourable Moot Court ,

Govt. Law College , Calicut.

__________________________________________________________

New India Films Appellant

Versus

Vishnu Sharma ₰ Others Respondents

__________________________________________________________

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………….3

Cases cited……………........................…………………………………………….

Books and Articles…………………………………………………………………

Statutes……………………………………………………………………………..

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………...4

Synopsis of Facts………………………………………………………………….5

Issues Raised………………………………………………………………………6

Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………….

Body of Arguments………………………………………………………………………....8

Prayer………………………………………………………………………….....14

3

_________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books Referred :Shukla, V.N. , Constitution of India – Tenth Edition

Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law – Fifth Edition – Volumes I and II

Basu, Durga Das, Commentary on the Constitution of India – Eighth Edition

Cases Referred :

1.Ajay Goswami V. Union Of India [AIR 2007 SC 493] 2.Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. State Of Karnataka [(1995) 1 SCC 574] 3.Olga Tellis V. Bombay Muncipal Corporation [ AIR 1986 SC 180 ] 4.Raj Kapoor V. Layman [ AIR 1980 SC 605] 5.Rangarajan V. Jagjivan Ram [ (1989) 2 SCC 574] 6.St. of Bihar V. Lal Krishna Advani [ AIR 2003 SC 3357] 7.St. of H.P v. Raja Mahendra Pal [AIR 1999 SC 1786]

- Statutes -1.The Constitution of India (1950) 2.Cinematograph Act, 1952

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4

The Appelents approach the Honourable Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The respondents respectfully submit to this jurisdiction invoked by the Appellants.

__________________________________________________________

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

5

This writ petition is filed against the order of High Court staying the “A” certificate granted by the Appellate Tribunal under Cinematograph Act, for the film “JUNGLE RANI”, and restraining its exhibition in India.The film deals with the life of an innocent village girl transformed to a dreaded dacoit due to social evil and brutality which she was subjected. The Appellate Tribunal under Cinematograph Act has followed the guidelines laid down in Cinematograph Certificate Rules and found that the scenes of nudity and use of expletives were to be permitted in aid of conveying the actual message in the film.Earlier the Censor Board and the revising committee had recommended “A” certificate for the film and hence the appeal to appellate tribunal, which also granted “A” certificate, subject to removal of certain vulgar words. A writ petition against the order of the tribunal was filed before the High Court, alleging that the film is indecent against a particular community of India, was violative of art. 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution, and against moral. Social values upheld and followed in India. The High Court granted stay against the order of appellate tribunal and hence this appeal to the supreme court. The film company (appellant) contends that the order of appellate tribunal is valid, that the High Court had violated their fundamental rights under articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the High Court has not considered the Cinematograph Act , and the Cinematograph certification rules in the proper perspective.

__________________________________________________________

ISSUES RAISED

6

1.Whether the order of High Court is violative of Cinematogragh Act 1952?

2. Whether the order of the High Court viloated the appellant’s fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India?

3. Whether the order of High Court is an arbitrary and unreasonable action, which violates article 14 of the constitution of India?

_________________________________________________________

7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the High Cort did not violated any of the provisions of Cinematograph Act and Rules.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the High Court dit not violated the Appellant’s fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the High Cort is a reasonable action and is consistent with article 14 of the constitution of India.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

8

2. Whether the order of the High Court violated the appellant’s fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India?

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the High Court is not violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution.

It is presented before this honourable court that the freedom of speech and expression provided under article 19(1) a of our constitution is subject to “reasonable restriction” on grounds set out under Article 19(2).

The reasonable limitations can be put in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relation with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

It’s therefore, clear that while the media- print, electronic, film or any other is free to express opinion and thought, it is in the larger public interest there should be some control by the state.

In Rangrajan V Jagjivan Ram[ (1989)2SCC 574] and

In Rajkapoor V Layman [AIR 1980 SC 60] it was observed that a movie has a more profound and immediate effect on the mind and has a unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings, it cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as does newspapers or magazines.

9

The film ‘Jungle Rani’ in the instant case is obviously introduced in order to titillate the senses and thus make the film commercially saleable.

Rape and Sex are glorified in the film. The scene of violent rape was disgusting and revolting and it denigrated and degraded women.

The depiction in the film was abhorrent and unconscionable and a slur on the womanhood of India.

Therefore, it is evident that the appellate Tribunal’s order was vitiated by the use of the wrong tests.

Hence the High Court’s order restraining the exhibition of film ‘Jungle Rani’ is just and proper does not offend the appellant’s fundamental rights.

The challenged film ‘Jungle Rani’ in the instant case, could properly be regarded as either appealing to a prurient interest in sex or depicting sex in patently offensive way.

Thus order of High Court restraining the exhibition of film is a reasonable restriction envisaged under article 19(2) of the constitution, i.e. in the interest of decency and morality.

10

Even though the theme of the film is of social relevance, the public expression of such theme must not offend human sensibilities or extol the degradation or denigration of women.

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, permits scenes of sexual violence against women in a film, reduced to a minimum and without details, only if relevant to the theme.

In the film ‘Jungle Rani’ the scenes of sexual violence, vulgarity and obscenity are overwhelming. Such scenes are not reduced to a minimum and even particularized.

The depiction of the theme in the film is against the contemporary standards of morality.

When obscenity and art are mixed; in order to protect the work, art must be so preponderating as to throw obscenity into a shadow or the obscenity is so trivial and insignificant that it can be have no effect and nay be over looked.

Here the obscene contents in the film outweighs the artistic, social merit of the film.

In Ajaya Goswami V Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 493) the S.C held that “the delicate task of deciding what is artistic and what is obscene is to be performed by the Courts “

11

The appellate tribunal was reluctant to exercise its power under section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, which echoes Art. 19(2).

[By virtue of section 5.B of the Act, a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of decency or morality]

In Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnadaka (1995) 1 SCC 574, the apex court held that the right conferred under article 19(1)(g) does not extend to carrying on occupation, trade or business which is immoral and against welfare of the general public.

So here the appellant’s right under article 19(1) (g) is reasonably restricted in the interest of the justice.

In st. of H.P V Raja Mahendra Pal, [AIR 1999 SC 1786] the Supreme Court observed that “Even though the right to livelihood would include all attributed of life, but it cannot be extended to the extent it may enable a person to take recourse to or earn his livelihood by violating the provision of any law.”

In olga Tellis V Bomaby Muncipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180), it was held that right to livelihood means which are not illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy.

12

RESPONDENT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable Court that the film is indecent against a particular community of India and hence violates the respondent’s fundamental rights under article 21 of the constitution.

The film depicts the respondent’s community in a most depraved way.

Most of scenes are suggestive of the moral depravity of the community.

It lowered the reputation and respect of the community in the society.

In State of Bihar V Lal Krishna Advani, [AIR 2003 SC 3357], the sc held that “one has the right to have and preserve his reputation and also to protect it.”

Nobody can use his freedom of speech and expression as to injure another’s reputation.

The film also offends the dignity of woman. The film creates drastic consequence of affecting over the

particular community’s reputation.

Appellant is not a citizen of india.

13

It is humbly submitted that the Appellant can not claim protection under Art. 19(1)(g) as it can be claimed by natural persons only. Juristic persons have not been granted the status of citizens in India. Cases on the issue of citizenship of a corporation.There are several cases that deny the citizenship of the corporations. In State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer7, the Supreme Court held that a company or a corporation is not a citizen of India and therefore it can not claim the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to citizens

3. Whether the order of High Court is an arbitrary and unreasonable action, which violates article 14 of the constitution of India?

The Act of 1952 establishes at the apex of the structure a Board of Film Certification comprising a chairman and not less than 12 and not more than 25 other members. It is to this board that any application for

14

certification for public exhibition must be addressed. The chairman and members are appointed by the Central government. They do not enjoy security of tenure; no one in the entire edifice does. No qualifications are prescribed either.

New Delhi also appoints “at such regional centres as it thinks fit advisory panels” comprising such number of persons as it thinks fit. In this instance, “qualifications” are prescribed in a statement of the obvious. They must be “qualified in the opinion of the Central government to judge the effect of films on the public” (emphasis added, throughout). By this test, even literacy is not essential.

Unregulated powers

The government wields vast “revisional powers” exercisable “at any stage” of the process, not only over the board but also over the tribunal (Section 6). Have you ever heard of the executive sitting in appeal over a judicial body? If the board receives a complaint in respect of a certified film, all that it can do is to refer it to its masters, the Central government. The board, it must be emphasised, is in law a quasi-judicial body.

The appellate tribunal was reluctant to exercise its power under section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act,

By virtue of section 5.B of the Act, a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of authority competent to grant the

15

certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of decency or morality

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16

In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, theRespondent, humbly prays before the Honorable Court, to be graciously pleased to:

1. Quash the writ petition filed by the Appellant in the Hon’ble court oflaw since there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the Appellant.

2. Maintain the status quo of the impugned order of High Court since there is no violation of the rights as alleged by the Appellant.

3. Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice,equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Counsel for the Respondent.