Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd and its directors, produced a Bengali feature film titled 'Bhobishyoter Bhoot' (meaning 'future ghosts'), a social and political satire. The film received a UA certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on 19 November 2018. Prior to its scheduled release on 15 February 2019 in Kolkata and other districts of West Bengal, the second petitioner received a call from a person claiming to be from the State Intelligence Unit of Kolkata Police, followed by a letter requesting a prior screening for senior police officials, citing concerns that the film might hurt public sentiments and lead to law and order issues. The petitioners refused, stating that the CBFC had already cleared the film. The film was released as scheduled and initially ran to packed houses. However, within a day, most exhibitors abruptly stopped screening the film, refunding tickets without explanation. Exhibitors cited unnamed 'higher authorities' and claimed local police had instructed them to cease screening. The petitioners alleged that the State of West Bengal, through its Home Department and Kolkata Police, had unlawfully obstructed the exhibition of the film, acting as a 'super-censor' and violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. They sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from obstructing the film's exhibition and to provide police protection. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petition, issued interim directions to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary of the Home Department of West Bengal to ensure no obstruction to the screening of the film and to provide adequate security. The court held that the CBFC is the sole authority for film certification, and state police cannot impose additional censorship or obstruct exhibition of a certified film, as that would violate the rule of law and fundamental rights.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Article 19(1)(a) - Censorship - State Police cannot act as a 'super-censor' over CBFC-certified films - The court held that once a film is certified by the CBFC under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, no other authority, including state police, can impose additional restrictions or obstruct its exhibition, as that would violate the fundamental right to free speech and expression (Paras 1-7). B) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Certification - Section 5E - CBFC as sole repository of power - The court held that the CBFC is the sole expert body empowered to certify films for public exhibition, and any interference by state authorities amounts to subversion of the rule of law and defiance of settled legal principles (Paras 7-8). C) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - The court issued interim directions to the Chief Secretary and Home Department of West Bengal to ensure no obstruction to the screening of the film and to provide adequate security, upholding the rule of law and fundamental rights (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State of West Bengal and its police authorities can obstruct the public exhibition of a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and whether such action violates the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court issued interim directions to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary of the Home Department of West Bengal to ensure no obstruction or restraint of any kind whatsoever is imposed on the film being screened in theatres, and directed adequate security arrangements to facilitate screening and protect viewers and property.
Law Points
- Freedom of speech and expression
- Censorship
- Cinematograph Act
- 1952
- CBFC certification
- State police interference
- Rule of law
- Article 19(1)(a)
- Article 32
