Swami Agnivesh Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (22 Feb 2018)

Statute refers to an actual practice of "Sati" and not to a visual depiction of an imaginary work of fiction portrayed in the film

MANU/DE/0784/2018

Media and Communication

Present writ petition seeks directions to the Central Board of Film Certification, to take "appropriate steps to stop glorification of the practice of 'Sati' by deleting the relevant scenes from the film "Padmaavat". The petition is premised on two articles. Petitioner prayed for issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate steps to stop glorification of the practice of 'Sati' by deleting the relevant scenes from the film "Padmaavat" and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the State Authorities to ensure that the scenes promoting and glorifying the act of 'Sati' are not screened in public; and restrain the Respondents from continuing to glorify the act of 'Sati' through promotion and further broadcast of the scenes relating to such act in the film "Padmaavat"; and direct the Respondent No. 2 to immediately register F.I.R. against the Respondents No. 4 and 5 on the basis of the complaints filed by the Petitioner.

The statute refers to Sati, "whether such Sati was committed before or after the commencement of Cinematograph Act, 1952 ". Therefore, reference in Section 2(1)(b) of the statute is to an actual practice of "Sati" and not to a visual depiction of an imaginary work of fiction as portrayed in the film. Section 2(1)(b)(ii) refers to "supporting, justifying or propagating the practice of Sati in any manner".

Present writ petition has come after the film has received the certification under the Cinematograph Act, after protracted litigation and a close scrutiny by the experts. Changes and excision which were directed by the Board stand effected. The Board has exercised its discretion carefully and not given a 'U' certificate for unrestricted viewing but granted a 'U/A' certification. As on date, the film stands released as well without any complaint. The content of the film has therefore, been in public domain for a long time. If at all the Petitioner had any grievance, he could have placed the relevant material before the Board of Film Certification at an appropriate time.

The writ petitioner has placed reliance on two articles which are critical of the portrayal by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the film. In this regard, it would be appropriate to note that, in the order dated 18th January, 2018, the Supreme Court has extracted from an earlier pronouncement in case of Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr, wherein on the issue of artistic expression, the Court observed that, a film or a drama or a novel or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind. The human history records that there are many authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of. A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the subconscious thoughts of the viewer and if there is any limitation that has to be as per the prescription in law.

While the two persons authoring the articles relied upon by the Petitioner have critiqued the film, clearly it is their view and perception regarding the film. The Petitioner is entitled to form a similar opinion and agree with them. It is apparent that at the same time, there are several others who have considered the impact of the film from other perspectives and do not share the views the petitioner or the two authors. Certainly writs cannot be issued against artistic works premised on individual perceptions.

The Disclaimer contained in the film stated that the film was inspired from the epic poem Padmaavat, written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi, which was considered a work of fiction. Producers of the film do not claim any historical authenticity or accuracy for the same. The writ petitioner does not contest the correctness of the contents of the disclaimer. By way of Disclaimer (II), it is unequivocally declared the film does not intend to encourage or support 'Sati' or such practices. The entire writ petition is premised on the sole submission that it has elaborately choreographed the 'Sati' or 'Jauhar' scenes in the history of Indian cinema. The writ petitioner does not even state at all that the film is 'supporting, justifying or propagating the practice of sati'. It is therefore, not possible to hold that, the film would invite penal action under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Regarding sanctity to be attached to a certificate granted by the Board of Film Certification is concerned, in the order dated 18th January, 2018 in Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court of India has held that there would be a prima facie presumption that the concerned authority has taken into account all the Guidelines before issuance of the certificate. The order stands recorded with regard to the certificate accorded by the Board of Film Certification to the film 'Padmaavat' and binds the present consideration. In the present case, the Board has scrutinized the film in the light of the statutory provisions and the above Guidelines. It has recommended removal of scenes, etc. to the original film which stand effected and even thereafter, a qualified 'U/A' certificate has been granted after application of mind and consideration of all relevant materials. Petition dismissed.

Relevant : Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.

Tags : SATI GLORIFICATION SCENES DELETION